What is the test for dismissing an allegation under the Three Strikes law?

Under section 1385, subdivision (a), and in furtherance of justice, a trial court may vacate an allegation under the Three Strikes law that a defendant has previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony. (People v. Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-530.) In doing so, "the court . . . must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of [the defendant's] present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [Three Strikes] scheme's spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.' [Citation.]" (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377.) The court must also state its reasons for dismissing a strike conviction allegation orally and, in some circumstances, in the court minutes ( 1385, subd. (a)), but is not required to "'explain its decision not to exercise its power to dismiss . . . .' [Citation.]" (People v. Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 376, italics added.)

Our review is for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 375.) "[A] trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it." (Id. at p. 377.) It is defendant's burden to establish that the trial court's decision was irrational or arbitrary. (Id. at p. 376.) That reasonable

Page 4