How have courts treated the facts in the context of a bank robbery case?

In defendant's first appeal, we recited the following facts: "Defendant walked into a bank and used a loaded gun to rob four bank employees. One of these victims was pregnant, and defendant leveled the barrel of the gun at her belly. He also physically attacked a male customer and pointed the gun at the man's face. Defendant then fled the scene in a stolen car, leading police on a dangerous car chase, blowing through red lights and stop signs, swerving into oncoming traffic and through intersections while driving nearly 100 miles per hour. Even worse, this was not defendant's first high-speed police chase. Years earlier, he had killed a man during a similar high-speed getaway attempt and was on parole for that murder when he committed this robbery. The Attorney General argued, 'No judge would ever find that the 'interest of justice' demanded clemency for a person like appellant.'" (People v. Graham (May 23, 2018, G055219.) [nonpub. opn.].)