How have courts treated a motion to reduce a convicted rapist's strike status?

In response to defense counsel's argument on the motion to reduce appellant's conviction to a misdemeanor that his conduct is not "strike-worthy" behavior, the prosecutor stated: "I think he will have a strike regardless of what the [c]ourt does today." Appellant correctly notes the prosecutor's statement is inaccurate. A felony conviction for a wobbler offense that is also a strike will not be treated as a strike if it is reduced pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), at the initial time of sentencing. (People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 794-795.) If the court had granted appellant's motion, appellant's section 422 conviction would no longer have been a strike. However, appellant's assertion the court relied on the prosecutor's inaccurate statement is speculation not supported by the record. When the court made its ruling it did not mention the strike status of the conviction. Rather, the court reasoned the disturbing nature of petitioner's conduct and his history with the victim justify placing him on felony probation. The court's concern for the victim's safety is a proper basis for exercising its discretion.

Appellant further contends the trial court should have granted the section 17, subdivision (b) motion due to appellant's mental health history, absence of a criminal record, and the nature of the offense. While these factors would be relevant to a trial court's analysis, they carry limited weight in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion. "[A] trial court will abuse its discretion ... if it relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision." (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.) The relevant question is

Page 10