than he, in. violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c). The court found true the allegation that respondent occupied a position of special trust and committed an act of substantial sexual conduct. (Pen. Code, § 1203.066, subd. (a)(9).) Respondent was sentenced to the low term of three years. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. On return of the remittitur, the trial court vacated respondent’s three-year sentence, suspended criminal proceedings, and granted probation conditioning its grant of probation upon respondent serving the first fifty-two days in county jail. The court then gave respondent credit for 52 days time he had already served. The People appeal from that order, contending: “A. The trial court erred in failing to follow the law of the case set by this court (<HOLDING>); B. The trial court erred on the merits in
holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory holding the mandatory minimum sentence to be constitutionally applicable to respondent holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding that a sentence below a statutory minimum based on the filing of a substantial assistance motion did not eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum for purposes of sentence modification under  3582c2