What is the effect of the Three Strikes law on the sentencing of a defendant?

The record shows that when this court remanded the matter to the trial court to give it an opportunity to exercise its discretion, we stated that, "resentencing may result." (Italics added.) We expressed no opinion as to whether the court should exercise its discretion to strike any of the prior convictions, or whether defendant was entitled to leniency. People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253 states that "a reviewing court has the power, when a trial court has made a mistake in sentencing, to remand with directions that do not inevitably require all of the procedural steps involved in arraignment for judgment and sentencing. . . . [I]t appears we may properly remand to permit the trial court to make the threshold determination of whether to exercise its discretion in defendant's favor without necessarily requiring resentencing unless the court does act favorably." (Id. at p. 258.)

Here, the trial court chose not to alter its sentence because it believed the original sentence was appropriate based on defendant's current offenses and criminal record. The court was so entitled. There is a legislative presumption that a court acts properly whenever it sentences a defendant in accordance with the Three Strikes law. (See People v. Strong (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 328, 337-338 [noting that the Three Strikes law establishes a sentencing requirement that must be applied unless the court concludes that the defendant falls outside the spirit of the law].) Therefore, no resentencing hearing was required, and there was no need for a new probation report