Does defendant have any grounds to argue that he would have avoided prosecution if he had been advised he was likely to lose his appeal?

Moreover, had defendant proceeded to trial and been convicted, he would have been subject to the same immigration consequences. Defendant offers no rebuttal to his own counsel's assessment that defendant was likely to lose at trial, no evidence of possible defenses to the charged offenses, and no other basis to conclude that he would have likely proceeded to trial or been able to negotiate a better plea if given the a different immigration advisement. "'The choice . . . that petitioner would have faced at the time he was considering whether to plead, even had he been properly advised, would not have been between, on the one hand, pleading guilty and being deported and, on the other, going to trial and avoiding deportation.' [Citation.] The defendant thus must convince the court he or she would have chosen to lose the benefits of the plea bargain despite the possibility or probability deportation would nonetheless follow." (People v. Martinez, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 565.)