What is the legal test for dismissing or striking prior felony conviction allegations in cases brought under the "Three Strikes" law?

The court's discretion to dismiss or strike prior felony conviction allegations in cases that are brought under the "Three Strikes" law is limited to instances in which dismissing such strikes is in the furtherance of justice, as determined by giving " ' "consideration both of the constitutional rights of the defendant, and the interests of society represented by the People." ' " (Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-530.) Thus, the court may not strike a sentencing allegation "solely 'to accommodate judicial convenience or because of court congestion' [citation], [or] simply because a defendant pleads guilty. [Citation.] Nor would a court act properly if 'guided solely by a personal antipathy for the effect that the three strikes law would have on [a] defendant,' while ignoring 'defendant's background,' 'the nature of his [or her] present offenses,' and other 'individualized considerations.' " (Id. at p. 531.) In deciding whether to dismiss a strike " 'in furtherance of justice' pursuant to . . . section 1385[, subdivision] (a), or in reviewing such a ruling, the court in question must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his [or her] present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his [or her] background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme's spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he [or she] had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies." (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) The sentence to be meted out to the defendant "is also a relevant consideration . . . ;

Page 9

in fact, it is the overarching consideration because the underlying purpose of striking prior conviction allegations is the avoidance of unjust sentences." (People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 500.)