How have courts interpreted the language of section 1170.12, subdivision (b)(1)(B) of the California Penal Code?

The courts of this state on occasion have found fault with the imprecise nature of language contained within statutory enactments. We find it difficult, however, to imagine language clearer, or more unequivocal, than that [18 Cal.4th 31] set forth above. (Cf. People v. Allison (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 841, 844, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 756, fn. 4 [Rejecting a claim that the Three Strikes law embodies a " 'brought and tried separately' requirement," and observing: "[W]e find that the language of section 667, subdivision (d) is clear and unambiguous...."].) Indeed, the effect of the interpretation urged by defendant would be to replace the phrase "[t]he stay of execution of sentence" (sections 1170.12, subdivision (b)(1)(B), 667, subdivision (d)(1)(B)) with the words "the stay of execution of sentence, except those stays mandated by section 654. " Defendant's proposed construction of the statute is one to which the plain language is not reasonably susceptible. (See 4 [Penal Code provisions "are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms."].) ⁵