Does a prior strike have to be considered a mitigating factor in determining a defendant's sentence?

Finally, although defendant's prior strike was 34 years old, we note that when "the defendant has led a continuous life of crime after the prior, there has been no 'washing out,' and there is simply nothing mitigating about [the age of the] prior." (People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 813.)

As defendant points out, a trial court abuses its discretion when it refuses to dismiss a strike because of personal antipathy for the defendant and without considering the defendant's background, the nature of the present offense, and other individualized considerations. (People v. Carrasco (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 978, 993.) Here, the record reflects that the trial court did consider the appropriate factors. Defendant bases his argument on the trial court's remarks as follows: "If I had a dollar for every one of these people who came in here and blamed every misfortune in life on their drug addiction, I would own this building and several others downtown. [] And it's the same old refrain. Gee, I am addicted to drugs, and I can't control myself. I need a program." However, the trial court gave a lengthy and careful discussion of its sentencing choices, and the overall tenor of the trial court's remarks indicates concern rather than animus.