that Prieto-Rubio expressly left open the question of whether a right-to-counsel violation justifies exclusion of evidence only as to the case for which defendant had appointed counsel at the time of the unlawful interrogation. See Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or at 38 n 5. However, because that issue was not raised in the initial briefing, the state concedes for purposes of this case that an exploitation analysis is appropriate. 7 Under ORS 135.335(3), a defendant who enters a conditional guilty plea and “finally prevails on appeal may withdraw the plea.” The Supreme Court has interpreted “the plea” to mean “the entire plea,” even when some of the counts encompassed by the plea would not otherwise be subject to the reversal. State v. Tannehill, 341 Or 205, 210-12, 141 P3d 584 (2006); id. at 211 (<HOLDING>). In this case, defendant’s conditional plea
recognizing that a single guilty plea may embody a series of interrelated concessions between the parties and allows the defendant to withdraw the entire plea when one part of the agreement fails 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 recognizing that where a guilty plea is shown to be constitutionally invalid leave to withdraw the plea is constitutionally mandated 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 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