What is the test for a motion to strike a defendant's prior conviction under the "three strikes" law?

The court's statement demonstrates that it considered the matters raised by defendant and rejected them. While disclaiming that he seeks to challenge the court's decision as an abuse of discretion, defendant's arguments amount to little more than that. The court was not compelled to state on the record all the factors that might support granting a motion to strike, only to reject them. In the absence of an affirmative record to the contrary, the court is presumed to have considered all of the relevant factors. The fact that the court, in declining to strike the prior, emphasized the legislative intent underlying the "three strikes" law and defendant's prior history of criminality and drug abuse does not mean that it ignored factors in mitigation. (People v. Kelley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 568, 582.) We thus reject defendant's argument.