How has the Court interpreted the "three strikes" statute?

I agree that because the "three strikes" statute does not contain "a clear legislative direction to the contrary" (People v. Thomas (1992) 4 Cal.4th 206, 210, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 174,

Page 811

I write separately to disassociate myself from the lengthy discussion whether this statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine if, contrary to our interpretation, it did remove discretion from the trial court. Relying on People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 89 Cal.Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993 and its progeny, the majority effectively decides that such a statute would violate the separation of powers. The majority's statutory interpretation stands on its own and renders the constitutional analysis unnecessary. Moreover, because the statute the majority considers is quite different from that confronted in Tenorio, that analysis is questionable.