How have courts treated a motion to strike a serious felony conviction on the grounds of improper use of power?

Finally, in People v. Alvarez, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at pp. 693-695, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 814, the trial court denied without comment the defendant's motion to strike his serious felony convictions on separation of powers grounds. On appeal, the court stated: "Here, defendant has failed to point to any part of the record which affirmatively shows the trial court 'misunderstood the scope of its discretion to strike prior felony conviction allegations ... pursuant to section 1358(a).' Instead, all we have is a record showing the trial court rejected defendant's separation of powers argument, and nothing more. We decline to automatically presume the trial court erroneously believed it had no discretion to strike defendant's priors in the absence of some affirmative showing that it misunderstood its discretion. To do so would require us to engage in pure speculation, and violate a basic tenet of appellate review." (Id. at p. 695, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 814.)

4 In People v. Rocha, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1072, footnote 7, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 212, the court discussed the issue only in passing, stating: "By supplemental letter brief appellant urges remand so the trial court may determine whether or not to exercise its limited discretion to dismiss one or more 'strikes.' [Citation.] We reject this request because no dismissal motion was made in the trial court. Additionally, the record fails to show the trial court misunderstood its section 1385 discretion."