What are the mitigating factors in a sexual assault case?

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by ignoring numerous mitigating factors, including (1) D.C.'s "willing participation" in the encounter with defendant (rule 4.423(a)(2)), (2) the fact that defendant had no prior record (apart from his 2013 misdemeanor conviction arising from defendant's second encounter with D.C.) (rule 4.423(b)(1)), and (3) the fact that defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing early in the criminal process (rule 4.423(b)(3)). However, a trial court has no obligation to make an express statement of reasons as to why proffered factors in mitigation are deemed insignificant or unpersuasive. (People v. Salazar (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 799, 813 ["trial court may minimize or even entirely disregard mitigating factors without stating its reasons"].) Thus, unless the record affirmatively indicates to the contrary, a trial court is presumed to have considered all relevant criteria, including any mitigating factors. (People v. Holguin (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1308, 1317-1318.)