With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that two of Green’s claims are refuted by the record and affirm the order as to those claims without comment. We reverse as to Green’s third .claim, which we conclude is facially sufficient and is not refuted by the record. Green alleged that counsel erroneously advised him that because his sentences were imposed concurrently, he would receive credit for time spent in prison on the 1989 charge against the sentences imposed on the new charges. This is, of course, incorrect as Green learned when he arrived at the Department of Corrections. Green further alleged that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had know this advice was incorrect. This claim is facially sufficient. See, e.g., Montgomery v. State, 615 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. State, 697 So.2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA

A: holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record on direct appeal is without merit
B: holding that postconviction allegations directly refuted by the trial record are without merit
C: holding that misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record
D: holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record is without merit
C.