What is the test for abuse of a minute order?

To prevail on such a motion, defendant had to demonstrate (1) he "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 . . . was prejudiced by the nonadvisement. [Citations.]" (People v. Totari, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 884.) We review the court's ruling for abuse of discretion. (People v. Limon (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1514, 1517-1518.)

Because no testimony or evidence was presented and the minutes of the 1990 plea hearing did not set forth the actual advisement given regarding the immigration consequences, defendant was "presumed not to have received the required advisement." ( 1016.5, subd. (b).) The presumption was rebuttable, and the prosecution bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the required advisements were given. (People v. Dubon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 944, 953-954.)

Page 6

Although a minute order provides some evidence the necessary advisements were given, it is insufficient by itself to establish a complete advisement of the three possible consequences of deportation, exclusion, and denial of naturalization. (People v. Dubon, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 955.) But here additional evidence exists in the form of the Tahl form on which defendant admits he initialed the statement informing him of the immigration consequences.