serve sixty-five percent of the time imposed on those sentences. The trial court acknowledged that counsel’s understanding was erroneous but went on to conclude that counsel’s “conduct and performance met the standard of performance.” Analysis “[I]f a defendant enters a plea in reasonable reliance on his attorney’s advice, which in turn was based on the attorney’s honest mistake or misunderstanding, the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea.” Trenary v. State, 453 So.2d 1132, 1133-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235, 237 (Fla.1996) (citing Trenary and recognizing that “a defendant may be entitled to withdraw a plea entered in reliance upon his attorney’s mistaken advice about sentenc ing”); Shell v. State, 501 So.2d 1334, 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). Cornett will serve at least eighty-five
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 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 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 if the defendant fails to file a motion in the trial court to withdraw his plea he cannot attack it for the first time on appeal 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