What is the burden of proving that a defendant was not properly advised of the consequences of a criminal conviction?

"To prevail on a motion brought pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5, a defendant must establish: (1) he or she was not properly advised of the immigration consequences as provided by the statute; (2) there exists, at the time of the motion, more than a remote possibility that the conviction will have one or more of the specified adverse immigration consequences; and (3) he or she was prejudiced by the nonadvisement, i.e., if properly advised, he or she would not have pleaded guilty or nolo contendere." (People v. Dubon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 944, 951952, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) The defendant also bears the burden of proving reasonable diligence in bringing the motion. (People v. Totari (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1208, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 613 (Totari ).) We review the superior court's denial of the motion for abuse of discretion. (

[196 Cal.Rptr.3d 591]

People v. Chien (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1287, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 448.)