Task: songer_plea

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule for the defendant on an issue related to plea bargaining? Plea bargain includes all challenges to plea." Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a denial of a § 2255 motion to vacate conviction and sentence. Defendant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and that he was denied due process of law in that he lacked the requisite understanding of the charge made against him and he was not apprised of his right to plead not guilty and get a trial by jury. We find no substantial merit in these contentions and accordingly affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged with robbing a Federal Nai'cotics Agent of property belonging to the United States. He had court appointed counsel. At his arraignment, the defendant in open court waived prosecution by indictment and consented to the proceedings being conducted on information. The information was read twice to defendant by the United States Attorney. Despite defendant’s assurances to the Court that he fully understood the nature of the charges, the information was read to the defendant in Spanish by an interpreter who informed the Court that defendant stated he understood the charges. The defendant then stated that he desired to plead guilty. Scrupulously guarding the defendant’s rights, the Judge questioned the defendant who stated several times that he was not coerced, had not been offered a deal, was not afraid, and that he was pleading guilty because he had committed the crime. The record also shows that the defendant was no novice in the ways of criminal law. In his efforts to make certain that the defendant understood fully the nature of the proceedings, his rights, etc., the Judge was aware as the record now reflects that the defendant had several prior convictions for which he had received sentences. The record adequately shows that the defendant fully understood the entire arraignment and sentencing proceedings and the consequences arising therefrom. No further hearing was needed. 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court rule for the defendant on an issue related to plea bargaining? Plea bargain includes all challenges to plea.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A