California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rodney, In re, 73 Cal.App.4th 36, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 785 (Cal. App. 1999):
The result is the same under the last antecedent rule. Under that rule, qualifying words and phrases refer solely to the immediately preceding antecedent. (White v. County of Sacramento, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 680, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191.) The phrase "provided that the person has been convicted previously of violating Section 220" modifies its antecedent "each violation of Section 220, other than an assault with intent to commit mayhem, ..." It does not modify the subsequent enumerated offenses. A defendant whose current conviction is for violation of section 220 may be sentenced under section 667.6, subdivision (d) only if he suffered a prior conviction under section 220. However, if a defendant is convicted of a different enumerated offense, such as rape or oral copulation, there is no requirement that he suffer a prior conviction.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.