What is the test for a motion to strike a criminal conviction for a prior criminal conviction?

Penal Code section 667, subdivision (c) reads: "Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), ... [p[49 Cal.App.4th 1820] ] ... (2) [p]robation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense." The wording of Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (a) is virtually identical. It states that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions, as defined in subdivision (b), ... [p] ... (2) [p]robation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense." Since the only authorized procedure for not imposing sentence on a prior conviction is to strike the prior (People v. Jones (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 756, 758, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 502; People v. Eberhardt (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1122-1123, 231 Cal.Rptr. 387), a literal reading of the language of the initiative makes it clear the voters intended to curtail the power of the judiciary to reduce sentences by striking prior felony conviction allegations pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (a)--at least on the court's own motion.