his plea because he entered it in reliance on counsel’s misadvice. The evidence at the hearing did not refute, and in fact supported, Cornett’s claim that his counsel advised him that he would serve his sentences under the sixty-five percent rule. In addition, testimony that counsel or the statewide prosecutor advised Cor-nett that his award of gain time would be up to the Department of Corrections does not refute Cornett’s claim that he was misadvised as to the gain time statute that would apply to him. Because the first three counts were part of a negotiated settlement including all ten counts, the entire plea agreement was tainted by counsel’s misadvice. Cor-nett is therefore entitled to withdraw his plea on all ten counts. See Quintana v. State, 917 So.2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); Whitaker v. State, 881 So.2d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA
holding that a defendant who has successfully challenged his plea in one ease should be allowed to withdraw his plea in a second case when both cases were part of one negotiated settlement of his charges holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state holding that no constitutional violation occurred where state prosecutor did not allow defendant to withdraw guilty plea and reinstated additional charges after defendant violated plea agreement by failing to testify truthfully at codefendants trial holding that if a plea agreement is breached the district court may either grant specific performance or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea holding jeopardy did not attach where defendant pled to one charge but refused to voluntarily withdraw his plea to the second charge in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement