The trial court did not err by using one prior arson conviction three times to enhance the sentence. In this opinion on rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its analysis of the section of its opinion concerning appellant’s dual-use argument previously published in People v. Jones (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 815. The appellate court held that the trial court properly used defendant’s prior arson conviction three times to reach the total term. Based on the plain language of the statutes, “it is apparent that the Legislature did not intend to preclude a defendant from incurring multiple adverse consequences based on a single prior arson conviction,” as long as the record supports the sentence imposed. The enhancement under section 451.1, subdivision (a) is to be applied “notwithstanding any other law.” The doubling requirement in sections 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1) and 667, subdivision (e)(1) is to be applied “in addition to any other enhancements.” The serious felony enhancement in section 667, subdivision (a)(1) is to be applied “in addition to the sentence imposed.” It is not an improper dual use of facts to use the same prior under each of these sections. Therefore the trial court did not violate the prohibition against the dual use of facts to use appellant’s prior conviction three times to reach the total term of 16 years.