People v. Myers CA3

DISCUSSION

Myers contends the trial court was not authorized to impose enhancements in addition to the habitual offender sentence because section 667, subdivision (a)(2) required dismissal of the enhancements and because the enhancements are unattached to a determinate sentence for a crime. The People agree the enhancements are unauthorized

2 but offer a different reason: The provisions of section 667.7 preclude imposition of enhancements in addition to a habitual offender sentence. We agree with the People’s reasoning and will strike the enhancements. Section 667.7 defines a “habitual offender,” as relevant here, as “[a]ny person convicted of a felony in which the person inflicted great bodily injury as provided in Section 12022.53 or 12022.7, or personally used force which was likely to produce great bodily injury, who has served two or more prior separate prison terms as defined in Section 667.5 for the crime of . . . assault with a deadly weapon.” (§ 667.7, subd. (a).) A habitual offender with two prior separate prison terms shall be sentenced to life in prison and shall be ineligible for parole for a period of time calculated as the longest of three options: (1) 20 years;…