of law, the trial court was required to permit him to withdraw his plea because he demonstrated good cause. The burden is upon the defendant to'establish good cause. Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 269 (Fla.1999); Taylor v. State, 870 So.2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Good cause exists in situations where the defendant demonstrates that his guilty plea was infected by misapprehension, undue persuasion, ignorance, was entered by one not competent to know its consequence, the ends of justice would be served by withdrawal of such plea or that it was otherwise involuntary. Onnestad v. State, 404 So.2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). A defendant’s entry of a plea based upon his attorney’s mistaken advice can be a valid basis for finding good cause. See Graham v. State, 779 So.2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(<HOLDING>). Here, the defendant’s claim of good cause is
holding that counsels mistaken advice that defendants photo would not be placed on the internet established good cause for permitting defendant to withdraw his guilty plea holding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the defendant did not admit to facts demonstrating the required mental state holding that a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea as a matter of right before it is accepted by the court based on ndr crim p 32d3 which states that a defendant may not withdraw his plea of guilty as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court  alteration in original holding that where a defendant is misled and induced to plead by his counsels mistaken advice then he may be allowed to withdraw his plea 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