A defendant’s prior conviction for oral copulation with a child under 14 in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c) is a “strike.” The plain language of section 1192.7 includes any lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, and under any definition oral copulation on a child is a lewd or lascivious act. Any other interpretation of the statute would frustrate the intent of that section. J. Mosk dissented on the issue of whether appellant’s prior conviction qualified as a “strike.” A trial court should apply both the Three Strikes Law and the habitual sexual offender statute in determining the sentence of a defendant who meets the criteria of both statutes. The statutes disclose a legislative intent that the Three Strikes Law apply in addition to section 667.71 J. Mosk dissented on the issue of whether appellant’s prior conviction qualified as a “strike.”