People v. Bartges

THE COURT

In two separate amended informations filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was accused of the crimes of forgery and grand theft.

The amended informations also charged that the accused previously had been convicted of arson, larceny and larceny by bailee, and grand theft. He was -tried and convicted of both crimes and judgments were entered on September 1, 1953, wherein it was stated that the allegations of prior convictions alleged in the information were true.

Defendant appealed from the judgments of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

On July 28, 1954, this court filed its opinion affirming the judgments of the trial court finding that there was evidence, including certified copies of records of state prisons showing commitment to such institutions of someone bearing the same name .as the appellant; testimony of a fingerprint expert that the fingerprints of the appellant were of the same person as

[497]

those appearing on the prison records; and his admission on cross-examination that he had been previously convicted of those crimes, to show that be had previously been convicted of the three crimes charged, and that therefore the court below did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences or in denying probation.

The appellant did not petition for a rehearing or for a hearing in the Supreme Court.

On August 27, 1954, the appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of California, in which he asserted the illegality of his confinement on the ground that the evidence at the trial had been insufficient to support the finding that he had been convicted three times previously, inasmuch as the district attorney had allowed the prison records as to two of them to remain for identification only; that the improper finding of three prior convictions resulted in improper imposition of consecutive sentences in the instant case; and that the trial court erroneously sustained the declination of Jameson to testify on the ground that his testimony would tend to incriminate him

(People