With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind.1994). However, there is a narrow exception as explained in Huffman, when our supreme court stated: With due respect for the doctrine of res judicata this Court has always maintained the option of reconsidering earlier cases in order to correct error. "A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate of the erroneous advisement of the trial court relating to the consecutive sentences, Badger did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter into the plea agreement mandating consecutive sentences. We cannot conclude that Badger still would have entered into this plea agreement had he been aware that consecutive sentences were not permitted by law. See Peace v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1261, 1266-67 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied; French v. State, 472 N.E.2d

A: holding that misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record
B: holding that the government likely could not agree to a plea bargain which would directly circumvent a mandatory minimum
C: holding that while misadvice does not warrant reversal as a matter of law a court on review must examine whether the incorrect advice concerning the minimum sentence rendered the defendants plea bargain illusory
D: holding that in order to establish prejudice based on misadvice regarding sentence length defendant must allege generally that he would not have pleaded but for the bad advice
C.