What is the burden of proving ineffective assistance in a motion seeking reversal of a plea?

We begin with defendant's contention that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object when the court found true both strike priors. To demonstrate prejudice, defendant must show it is reasonably probable the court would have struck his strike priors had his counsel requested it. (People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284, 306.) He makes no effort to do so. Accordingly, his claim fails.

Defendant's second contention is that trial counsel misled him regarding the terms of the plea agreement. That claim fails because defendant fails to show that the misinformation prejudiced him. "[W]hen a defendant claims misadvisement by defense counsel and seeks reversal due to ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden to show he or she would have made a different decision had defense counsel advised properly." (People v. Miralrio (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 448, 463.) Defendant makes clear in his letter brief that he does not want to challenge his plea agreement. He refers to it as "fair." Accordingly, we conclude it is not reasonably likely that defendant, who was facing eight years in prison, would have refused the plea agreement had he been properly advised that he would be required to serve approximately three years and three months as opposed to two years.