In Re Rye

WOOD (Fred B.), J.

In 1948, in the superior court, Fresno County, petitioner was convicted upon three counts (first degree murder and two armed robberies). He was sen

[595]

tenced to life imprisonment for murder and for the term prescribed by law upon each of the robbery counts.

The judgment erroneously declared that the terms for robbery would run consecutively. Section 669 of the Penal Code declares that when a person is convicted of one or more crimes and the punishment for any of them “is expressly prescribed to be life imprisonment,” the terms of imprisonment on the other convictions “shall be merged and run concurrently with such life term. ’ ’ Imprisonment for first degree murder is

expressly prescribed

as “confinement in the state prison for life” (Pen. Code, § 190. See

People

v.

Holman,

72 Cal.App.2d 75, 100 [164 P.2d 297].)

If this were an appeal from the judgment we could correct the judgment by amending it, without referring it to the trial court for correction.

(People

v.

Tucker,

127 Cal.App.2d 436, 438 [273 P.2d 934];

People

v.

Pearson,

150 Cal.App.2d 811, 821-822 [311 P.2d 142];

People

v.

Pearson,

151 Cal.App.2d 583, 586 [311 P.2d 927].)

But this is not an appeal. It is a habeas corpus proceeding. Although we can not deal directly with the judgment by amending it we can ascertain and declare its meaning and effect. Habeas corpus is not limited to the type of case in which a petitioner is entitled to be discharged. “It is well settled that the writ of habeas corpus ordinarily may not be employed as a substitute for an appeal . . . , yet the scope of inquiry in such proceedings has been broadened rather than narrowed . . . , and the writ may be used to present questions of law that cannot otherwise be reviewed or are so important as to justify an extraordinary remedy ...”