Green

Appellant was convicted after jury trial of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). 1 The jury found that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5). He appeals from the judgment.

Miranda

Appellant contends that his statements made at the crime scene and at the police station were improperly admitted at trial because the prosecution failed to show the requisite warnings and waivers under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U. S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]. Appellant’s failure to object below on Miranda grounds precludes his present contentions. (People v. Bennett (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 112, 116 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 305 ].)

*590 Effectiveness.

Appellant charges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to raise the above Miranda contentions by voir dire of the officer and objection and (2) to bring about appellant’s admission, outside the jury’s presence, of the alleged prior prison terms.

The governing rules appear in People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R. 4th 1 ].

With regard to the alleged admissions made at the scene, appellant has failed to identify the testimony of which he complains by citation…

I concur with the opinion except for that portion under the heading “Evidentiary Sufficiency— Prior Prison Term.”

There was substantial evidence before the jury to establish that the defendant was imprisoned pursuant to a judgment in action No. 19418. Although no showing of completion of the term was made, 1 such is unnecessary in the sense argued for by the majority. The statutory purpose of subdivision (g) of section 667.5 2 is to prevent two enhancements for a single sentence to state prison where parole was violated without a new commitment. (People v. Espinoza (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 59, 70-71 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 894 ].)

The evident purpose of section 667.5 is “.. . the sensible one of providing courts with added punishment possibilities for prior imprisoned recidivist offenders.” (People v. Mathews (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 704, 711 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 615 ].) It fosters the general purpose of determinate sentencing, which is, “to increase the penalties incurred by repeat offenders and thus deter recidivism.” (People v. Butler (1980) 104 Cal. App.3d 868, 884 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 913 ].)

The Legislature’s evident purpose of preventing enhancements for parole violations was inartfully…

BROWN (G.A.), P.J.

Appellant was convicted after jury trial of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). [1] The jury found that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5). He appeals from the judgment.

(1) Appellant contends that his statements made at the crime scene and at the police station were improperly admitted at trial because the prosecution failed to show the requisite warnings and waivers under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]. Appellant's failure to object below on Miranda grounds precludes his present contentions. ( People v. Bennett (1976) 60 Cal. App.3d 112, 116 [ 131 Cal. Rptr. 305 ].)

Appellant charges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to raise the above Miranda contentions by voir dire of the officer and objection and (2) to bring about appellant's admission, outside the jury's presence, of the alleged prior prison terms.

The governing rules appear in People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R. 4th 1 ].

(2) With regard to the alleged admissions made at the scene, appellant has failed to identify the testimony of which he complains by…