Section 1385, subdivision (a), provides: "The judge or magistrate may, either of his or her own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal must be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes. No dismissal shall be made for any cause which would be ground of demurrer to the accusatory pleading." 1. In People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, the Supreme Court held that, under section 1385, subdivision (a), a trial court may, on its own motion and in furtherance of justice, dismiss an allegation or finding that a defendant has previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony. In deciding whether to strike a prior serious or violent felony conviction under the Three Strikes law, the court "must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his 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 had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies." ( People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) Proper exercise of the court's discretion requires that a balance be struck between the defendant's constitutional right not to be punished disproportionately and society's legitimate interest in fair prosecution of properly charged crimes. ( Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530.) The trial court's decision is "subject to review for abuse of discretion. " ( People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 162.) Under this standard, the court "asks in substance whether the ruling in question 'falls outside the bounds of reason' under the applicable law and the relevant facts citations." (Ibid.) Thus, we are mindful that our review of a trial court's decision to strike or not to strike a prior conviction under section 1385 is limited in scope. ( People v. Gillispie (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 429, 434; see also People v. Benevides (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 728, 735.) 2. In People v. Benevides (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 728, 734, the Court held that the power to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 may only be exercised on the trial court's own motion or the motion of the People. The defendant does not have the power to make such a motion, except informally. the Court further found that if the trial court does not exercise its power to dismiss or strike the true finding of a prior serious felony under Penal Code section 1385, there is no review available to the defendant on appeal. (Ibid.) The only exception to this rule is where the trial court is unaware of its discretion to strike a prior conviction pursuant to section 1385. ( Id. at pp. 734-735.) 3. In People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, the defendant was convicted on two counts of burglary and sentenced to an aggregate term of 31 years 4 months to life as follows: 25 years to life on one burglary count, a consecutive 16-month term on the second burglary count, and a 5-year serious felony enhancement. In order to arrive at this sentence the trial court exercised its discretion pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (a) and struck the prior conviction allegations as to one of the burglary counts. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that section 1385 authorizes a trial court to strike prior conviction allegations as to one count while not striking them as to another. (20 Cal.4th at p. 499.) In so doing, the court reiterated the parameters it announced in People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 948 P.2d 429 that govern a trial court's discretion under section 1385 to strike prior conviction allegations in a three strikes case: "In Williams we said that the trial court could give 'no weight whatsoever . . . to factors extrinsic to the Three Strikes scheme.' On the other hand, the court must accord 'preponderant weight ... to factors intrinsic to the scheme, such as the nature and circumstances of the defendant's present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects.' Ultimately, a court must determine whether 'the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme's spirit, in whole or in part.'" ( People v. Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 498-499.) The court also noted that even if the current offenses were identical, a defendant's "prospects" for committing future crimes will differ greatly from one count to another because a lengthy three strikes sentence on one count will itself radically alter those prospects. ( People v. Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 500.) 4. In People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 497, the California Supreme Court concluded that " section 1385(a) . . . permits a court acting on its own motion to strike prior felony conviction allegations in cases brought under the Three Strikes law." The state high court emphasized, however, that "a court's discretion to strike prior felony conviction allegations in furtherance of justice is limited. Its exercise must proceed in strict compliance with section 1385(a), and is subject to review for abuse." Quoting from People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 937, 945 120 Cal. Rptr. 65, 533 P.2d 193, the court stated that "' "the language of section 1385, 'in furtherance of justice,' requires consideration both of the constitutional rights of the defendant, and the interests of society represented by the People, in determining whether there should be a dismissal."' " Romero, supra, 13 Cal. 4th at page 530. The trial court may strike such prior convictions "in the furtherance of justice" so that a defendant is not subject to the statutorily increased penalty. ( Id. at p. 529.) The language "in furtherance of justice" requires consideration both of the constitutional rights of the defendant, and the interests of society represented by the People, in determining whether there should be a dismissal. (Id. at pp. 530-531.) In People v. Superior Court (Romero), the Supreme Court held that a trial court has discretion to dismiss strike allegations under section 1385. It "emphasized" that "a court's discretion to strike prior felony conviction allegations in furtherance of justice is limited. Its exercise must proceed in strict compliance with section 1385(a), and is subject to review for abuse." (Romero, at p. 530.) "We . . . review rulings on motions to strike prior convictions . . . under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Under that standard an appellant who seeks reversal must demonstrate that the trial court's decision was irrational or arbitrary. It is not enough to show that reasonable people might disagree about whether to strike one or more of his prior convictions. Where the record demonstrates that the trial court balanced the relevant facts and reached an impartial decision in conformity with the spirit of the law, we shall affirm the trial court's ruling, even if we might have ruled differently in the first instance." ( People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 309-310.) Discretion is also abused when the trial court's decision to strike or not to strike a prior is based on improper reasons. ( People v. Superior Court (Romero), supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, 531; People v. Benevides (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 728, 735, fn. 7.) The touchstone of the analysis must be "whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his 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 had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies." ( People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.)