With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Accordingly, since the information alleges the commission of an act that is not a crime, Jordan’s conviction and sentence must be reversed. The State argues, finally, that assuming that Jordan was charged with a nonexistent crime, it has the option of either filing an information that charges a valid offense or withdrawing from the plea agreement entirely and proceeding to trial on all counts in both cases. We agree. In Akins v. State, 691 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the court reversed the defendant’s conviction for attempted felony murder because it was not a crime. The court specifically advised that on remand, the state could file a new indictment or information which charges a valid offense or it could withdraw from the entire plea agreement. See also Harkness, 771 So.2d at 589 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). We reverse Jordan’s

A: holding that mutual mistake as to essential element of plea agreement can invalidate entire agreement
B: holding that reversal of a conviction of a nonexistent crime pursuant to a plea entered by the defendant was warranted
C: holding that the united states breach of the plea agreement releases the defendant from the appeal waiver
D: holding that where judgment and sentence for nonexistent crime had to be vacated upon remand the state shall have the option of withdrawing from the entire plea agreement since the plea agreement was based on a material mistake of law which works to the benefit of the defendant
D.