to the other two without comment. We first address two of Lester’s claims, which we consider to be interrelated although Lester raised them separately. Lester first alleges that counsel failed to advise him that as a consequence of being habitualized he could receive a life sentence with a mandatory minimum fifteen-year term if convicted. He states that had he been aware of this potential penalty, he would have accepted the State’s pre-trial plea offer of a guidelines sentence. He next alleges that counsel failed to advise him of the State’s last plea offer of seventeen years made the morning of trial. He asserts that had counsel conveyed that offer, he would have accepted it'. Both of these claims are facially sufficient. See, e.g., Hilligenn v. State, 660 So.2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>), approved by Cottle v. State, 733 So.2d 963
holding that to prove ineffectiveness where defendant rejected plea offer upon advice of counsel defendant must show he would have accepted the offer had counsel advised correctly the state would not have withdrawn its offer the court would have accepted the offer and the resulting sentence would have been less severe holding that to demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsels deficient performance that caused a defendant to forgo a favorable plea offer a defendant must show that he would have accepted the offer to plead and that there is a reasonable probability neither the prosecution nor the trial court would have prevented the offer from being accepted or implemented holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell holding that defense counsel had duty to communicate formal offer from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused holding claim that counsel failed to convey a plea offer that was more favorable than the sentence imposed after trial together with an assertion that defendant would have pleaded had he or she known of the offer is facially sufficient