Does a court have to find a case "unusual" even if a rule 4.413 criterion applies?

On appeal, defendant acknowledges that a court is not required to find a case "unusual" even if a rule 4.413 criterion applies. "Under rule 4.413, the existence of any of the listed facts does not necessarily establish an unusual case; rather, those facts merely 'may indicate the existence of an unusual case.' [Citation.] This language indicates the provision 'is permissive, not mandatory.' [Citation.] '[T]he trial court may but is not required to find the case unusual if the relevant criterion is met under each of the subdivisions.' [Citation.]" (People v. Stuart, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 178.)