What is the test for appealing against the maximum sentence imposed on an appellant under the Three Strikes law?

6 The Rodriguez court fashioned a limited remand procedure. The trial court was instructed to determine whether or not it would exercise its limited discretion. "If it decides not to exercise its limited discretion, the defendant need not be present and the imposed sentence shall remain in effect. However, if the trial court believes it would not be an abuse of its limited discretion to dismiss one or more 'strikes'--and it wishes to do so--then the defendant must be present and a new sentence hearing conducted." (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 431, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 801, fn. omitted.)

7 This is not to say appellant is without remedy if his failure to urge extenuating circumstances resulted from the trial court's expression, not reflected on this record, that it had no alternative but to impose the maximum sentence under the "Three Strikes law." He may avail himself of the habeas corpus remedy outlined in (People v. Superior Court (Romero), supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530, fn. 13, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628.)