How have the courts treated the prior convictions of appellant in the context of Three Strikes?

^3. At the hearing, the court raised the question of whether appellant's two convictions in the same case in 2000 should be treated as one strike or two. The court never directly answered that question before refusing to strike any of the prior convictions. We note they constituted separate strikes because they involved separate incidents and separate victims. (People v. Rusconi (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 273, 275 [two manslaughter convictions involving two victims in one incident constituted two strikes].) That made appellant's current conviction a fourth strike, so the court would have had to strike at least two of his prior convictions to affect his sentence under the Three Strikes law. Because we find the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike any of appellant's prior convictions, we need not address this issue further.