Does section 667, subdivision 6(c)(6) of the Three Strikes Act require consecutive sentences for a defendant convicted of more than one felony?

It is clear section 667, subdivision (c)(6) mandates consecutive sentences when the current felonies are not committed on the same occasion and do not arise from the same operative facts. (People v. Ingram, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1407-1408, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 256.) It is equally clear section 654 does not preclude consecutive sentences under the Three Strikes law when multiple felony counts are based on a single violent criminal act against multiple victims. However, it is a leap in logic and statutory construction to say that the language of subdivision (c) mandates consecutive sentences when a current conviction of more than one felony count is based upon a single violent criminal act committed against multiple victims. We find nothing in the language of subdivision (c) that compels such a conclusion.