Does the court abuse its discretion by failing to give substantial weight to defendant's mental health as a mitigating factor in mitigation?

Similarly, the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give substantial weight to defendant's mental health as a circumstance in mitigation. Here, the court was apprised of defendant's history of bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. The court further knew defendant had ceased his strong psychiatric medication and later described himself as off [his] rocker at the time of his arrest. Though the court did not mention defendant's mental health as a mitigating factor, the court also did not conclude that defendant was suffering from a mental condition that significantly reduced his culpability for the crime, which is required to qualify as a mitigating circumstance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(2).) Even if the court had concluded that defendant's mental health was a mitigating factor, it was entitled to minimize any of the mitigating factors without explanation. (People v. Salazar (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 799, 813.)