What is the effect of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Three Strikes statute?

Against this historical backdrop, I consider the Three Strikes statute. The majority's interpretation means that we, the courts, were wrong the last 30 years in concluding that the stay procedure would protect defendants from having the stayed sentence used as a prior conviction. At the least, the Three Strikes statute should explicitly declare this result before we so conclude. In another case involving section 654, we stressed that "[a]s a general rule of statutory construction, of course, repeal by implication is disfavored. [Citation.] Such repeal is particularly disfavored when, as here, the statute allegedly repealed expresses a legal principle that has been a part of our penal jurisprudence for over a century." (People v. Siko (1988) 45 Cal.3d 820, 824, 248 Cal.Rptr. 110, 755 P.2d 294.) "[S]ection 654 ... is presumed to govern every case to which it applies by its terms--unless some other statute creates an express exception." (Ibid.)