In People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, the trial court dismissed one of the defendant's strikes because it was 13 years old and after it, the defendant had not committed another violent crime. However, the California Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion. (Id. at pp. 162-164.) The court noted that the defendant had a 19-year criminal history that included strike convictions for attempted robbery and rape as well as non-strike convictions for spousal battery, possession of firearms, and driving under the influence. The court explained, that in exercising its discretion, the trial court should give no weight to "factors extrinsic to the Three Strikes scheme" and 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." (Id. at p. 161.) The critical determination is whether 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." (Ibid.) The state Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing one of the defendant's strikes where the defendant, who pleaded guilty to driving a vehicle under the influence, had a 19-year criminal history, including attempted robbery and rape convictions in 1982 that qualified as strikes. Although the trial court had vacated the finding relating to the attempted robbery conviction in 1982 because the strike was approximately 13 years old and because the defendant had not engaged in violent crimes since then, the state high court ruled: "In light of the nature and circumstances of his present felony of driving under the influence, which he committed in 1995, and his prior conviction for the serious felony of attempted robbery and his prior conviction for the serious and violent felony of rape, both of which he suffered in 1982, and also in light of the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, which were not positive, Williams cannot be deemed outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law in any part, and hence may not be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of those serious and/or violent felonies." Williams, supra, 17 Cal. 4th at pages 162-163. The high court further explained that the fact that 13 years had passed between his prior strikes and his present felony was "not significant" because "he did not refrain from criminal activity during that span of time, and he did not add maturity to age." Williams, supra, 17 Cal. 4th at page 163.In People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th at pages 162-163, the California Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's dismissal of one of the defendant's strikes was unjustified, saying: "In light of the nature and circumstances of his present felony of driving under the influence, which he committed in 1995, and his prior conviction for the serious felony of attempted robbery and his prior conviction for the serious and violent felony of rape, both of which he suffered in 1982, and also in light of the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, which were not positive, Williams cannot be deemed outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law in any part, and hence may not be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of those serious and/or violent felonies. "There is little about Williams's present felony, or his prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, that is favorable to his position. Indeed, there is nothing. As to his present felony: It is a conviction of driving under the influence that followed three other convictions of driving under the influence; 'the existence of such convictions reveals that he had been taught, through the application of formal sanction, that such criminal conduct was unacceptable--but had failed or refused to learn his lesson' As to his prior serious and/or violent felony convictions: The record on appeal is devoid of mitigation. "Similarly, there is little favorable about Williams's background, character, or prospects. We do not ignore the fact that he apparently had had a stable living arrangement with a woman, had expressed a desire to help care for their disabled child, and was still loved, and supported, by his family. But neither can we ignore the fact that he was unemployed and did not follow through in efforts to bring his substance abuse problem under control. Certainly, that he happened to pass about 13 years between his prior serious and/or violent felony convictions and his present felony, and proceeded from about 20 years of age to 32, is not significant. He did not refrain from criminal activity during that span of time, and he did not add maturity to age. Quite the contrary."