What is the test for a motion denying an order denying a section 1016.5 motion for an abuse of discretion?

was prejudiced by the nonadvisement." (People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 884.) Defendant here has not established he was not properly advised of the immigration consequences as provided by the statute.

We review an order denying a section 1016.5 motion for an abuse of discretion. Under this standard, we must decide " 'whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.' " (People v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562, 578.)² It is defendant's burden to show the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (People v. Limon (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1514, 1518.) He has not done so.