What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" 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".

Opinion:
Luciano CEDILLO, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 25002.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 12, 1968.
Luciano Cedillo, Huntsville, Tex., pro se.
Robert E. Owen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, WISDOM, Circuit Judge and BREWSTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief, after a plenary hearing in the District Court.
The appellant is confined by authority of a conviction of robbery by assault with two prior felony convictions proved for enhancement of sentence. He received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment as a third felonious offender on June 20, 1961. Upon direct appeal, which he prosecuted pro se, the judgment was affirmed. Cedillo v. State, 1962, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 352 S.W.2d 736, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 958, 82 S.Ct. 1611, 8 L.Ed.2d 824.
The appellant has contended that he, an indigent person, was denied representation of counsel in his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. Since we hold that this point is well taken, we find it unnecessary to discuss here the appellant’s other contentions.-
In his pro se brief upon direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant stated that because he was dissatisfied with their conduct of his trial, he dismissed the two attorneys who had defended him by court appointment. These attorneys have filed an affidavit in which they state that they defended the appellant to the best of their ability, but were not requested by him, nor instructed by the trial court, to represent him on appeal.
The appellant further stated in his brief in the Court of Criminal Appeals that he “was denied several times the right to have an appointed counsel” to represent him on appeal. This makes it unnecessary for us to resolve any questions about what the state trial judge might have done with respect to requests (or absence of them) for counsel on appeal.
In no more direct way could petitioner have made a request for appellate counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals did not even refer to it. He was entitled to such counsel and that Court, if not the State Trial Court, had to furnish it to him. Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967); Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Pate v. Holman, 5 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 764.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for the District Court to enter an appropriate order providing the appellant with “a review of his conviction with the aid of counsel on direct appeal as adequate as if counsel had pursued the appeal and rendered the services of an advocate in the first instance.” Merkel v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1968, 387 F.2d 854; Wainwright v. Simpson, 5 Cir., 1966, 360 F.2d 307. This review may take the form of either a regular or extraordinary proceeding but it must be the equivalent of a direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in which the Appellant is represented by counsel. Otherwise the District Court will be obliged to issue the writ.
Reversed and remanded.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 0