Hamilton

After a court trial, appellant was found guilty of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666. Statutory references, unless otherwise noted, are to the Penal Code) and an alleged serious felony, a “strike” (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), was found true. Appellant was sentenced to a four-year state prison term, less one hundred thirty-nine days’ custody credits.

Appellant contends: (1) only a conviction suffered on or after March 7, 1994, can be a “strike”; (2) the “three strikes” statute is unconstitutionally vague; and (3) section 667, subdivision (c)(5), which limits custody credits to one-fifth the imprisonment term, denies him equal protection of the law. We find no merit in these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Discussion

1. Appellant contends only a conviction suffered on or after March 7, 1994, can be a “strike”

The contention is a familiar one. We join other courts in rejecting it. (People v. Reed (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1608, 1610-1612 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 47 ]; People v. Anderson (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 587, 600-601 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 474 ]; People v. Green (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 280, 282-284 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 249 ]; People v. Sipe (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 468, 476-479 [ 42…