Appellant was on trial for making criminal threats. When all but one of the verdicts had been read, appellant attacked the prosecutor. On appeal from the conviction for attempted murder of a public official, appellant contended that his three prior convictions for criminal threats could not be considered strikes because it had not been determined whether the offenses would be treated as felonies or misdemeanors when appellant committed the new offense. The appellate court rejected the argument. The Three Strikes law was not intended to reward defendants for over-eagerness in committing new offenses. The letter and spirit of the law is maintained when a defendant who commits a new offense after has guilt has been determined on prior conduct is punished under the law, regardless of whether judgment and sentence have been pronounced on the initial offense.