What is the burden of proving that the court's denial of a Romero motion was an abuse of power?

Appellant fails to meet his burden of showing that the court's denial of his Romero motion was an abuse of discretion. The record reflects that the court fully considered all relevant factors in finding that appellant did not fall outside the spirit of the three strikes law. Appellant refers to various factors including his age, his mental health issues, and the remoteness of his prior, yet he offers nothing to demonstrate that the court failed to consider these factors. (See People v. Pearson (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 740, 749 [reviewing court presumes the trial court considered all relevant factors in denying a Romero motion].)