even if he were to prevail on the merits, it is far from clear to us that he would be entitled to withdraw only one portion of his plea. A plea agreement is a bargain, and generally, a defendant is not entitled to change only one part of that bargain. See State v. Turley, 149 Wn.2d 395, 400, 69 P.3d 338 (2003) (recognizing that, generally, a plea agreement is a package deal). The arguments before us have been couched in terms of whether the trial court erred in accepting the plea, not in terms of whether Easterlin should be allowed to withdraw some portion of his plea. Our disposition makes it unnecessary for us to resolve these perplexities. 2 We recognize that this was not so clear at the time Easterlin filed his appeal. See State v. Holt, 119 Wn. App. 712, 728, 82 P.3d 688 (2004) (<HOLDING>) (citing State v. Eastmond, 129 Wn.2d 497, 503,
holding the connection is an element holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that some federal connection to the misconduct is required