How have the courts interpreted section 667.5 of the Criminal Code when determining whether a defendant suffered two felonies for which he served a prison term?

At a bifurcated trial, the jury found true that defendant had suffered two felonies for which he served a prison term. ( 667.5.) Defendant challenges these findings on a number of grounds. One has technical merit. The jury made two findings of a prior prison term, one for each conviction. However, the enhancement was for the prison term, not the convictions. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant had two felony convictions, but he served only one prison term. Accordingly, we must strike the redundant second prison term finding. (People v. Jones (1998) 63 Cal. App.4th 744, 750, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 328.)

Defendant also argues the prosecution did not properly prove any prior prison term under section 667.5. His arguments revolve around the fact that the section 667.5 enhancement, although for a prior prison term, requires that the underlying conviction be for "any felony." ( 667.5, subd. (b).) This enhancement applies to out-of-state prison terms only if the underlying conviction, "if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in state prison," i.e., if it would be a felony under California law. ( 667.5, subd. (f).) "A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense which includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined

[96 Cal.Rptr.2d 40]

under California law...." ( 667.5, subd. (f); see People v. Crowson (1983) 33 Cal.3d 623, 633, 190 Cal.Rptr. 165, 660 P.2d 389.)

[96 Cal.Rptr.2d 40]