In People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, the issue was whether consecutive sentences were mandatory under section 667, subdivisions (c)(6), (c)(7), or (e)(2)(B), when the defendant had two or more prior felony convictions within the meaning of subdivision (d), and committed serious or violent felonies against multiple victims at the same time. (Hendrix, at p. 511.) The court explained that subdivision (c)(6) provided that consecutive sentencing was mandatory for any current felony convictions "'not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts.'" (Hendrix, at p. 512; see 667, subd. (c)(6).) However, subdivision (c)(7) applied when there was "more than one current serious or violent felony." (Hendrix, at p. 513.) The court went on to explain that the meaning of the reference to "'paragraph (6)'" in subdivision (c)(7) was that it referred to subdivision (c)(6). (Hendrix, at p. 513.) The court stated that "when a defendant is convicted of two or more current serious or violent felonies 'not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts,' not only must the court impose the sentences for these serious or violent offenses consecutive to each other, it must also impose these sentences 'consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.'" (Ibid.) The court concluded that, "by implication, consecutive sentences are not mandated under subdivision (c)(7) if all of the serious or violent current felony convictions are 'committed on the same occasion' or 'arise from the same set of operative facts.'" (Ibid., italics added.)