Is a separate determinate term for enhancements under option (iii) a violation of section 654 of the Criminal Code?

Defendant also asserts that imposition of a separate determinate term for enhancements under option (iii) violates the multiple punishment proscription of section 654. We disagree. As we have already stated, neither subdivision (c)(2)(A), nor an indeterminate life term imposed thereunder, is a sentence enhancement. Consequently, by imposing a separate determinate term for the section 667(a) enhancements under option (iii), the sentence is enhanced only once. (See People v. Martin (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 656, 668, fn. 7, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 776.)