Gonzalez

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a nonjury trial that determined he had used a firearm during the commission of a robbery in which great bodily injury had been inflicted. He contends: “The trial court erred by (a) failing to elect between a determinate non-life sentence and a life sentence as a habitual offender after declaring that appellant should serve only 11 years; and (b) using the same facts to impose both an aggravated term and enhanced terms for prior convictions and habitual offender status.”

Appellant’s contentions arise in the following manner. Penal Code section 667.7 as it read in 1985 provided: “Any person convicted of a felony in which such person inflicted great bodily injury as provided in Section 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. . . robbery involving the use of force or a deadly weapon;. . . is a habitual offender and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life and shall not be eligible for release on parole for 20 years, or the term determined by the court…