What is the test for determining that a case may or may not be unusual for an abuse of discretion?

We review a trial court's determination that a case may or may not be unusual for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Stuart (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 165, 178.) "[A] trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it." (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377.) "A court abuses its discretion 'whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.' [Citation.] We will not interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion 'when it has considered all facts bearing on the offense and the defendant to be sentenced.'" (People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909-910.) Further, "if the statutory limitations on probation are to have any substantial scope and effect, 'unusual cases' and 'interests of justice' must be narrowly construed and, as rule 413 provides, limited to those matters in which the crime is either atypical or the offender's moral blameworthiness is reduced." (People v. Superior Court (Dorsey) (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1229.)