The Court of Appeal held that, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), appellant’s prison prior enhancement must be stricken because appellant did not serve a prior prison term for a sexually violent offense. In addition, pursuant to section 654, the trial court erred by imposing concurrent sentences for arson and vandalism because they arose from an indivisible course of conduct. Finally, the Court found that the trial court erred by limiting appellant’s presentence conduct credit under section 2933.1, because appellant was not convicted of a violent felony; thus, section 4019 governed.
^