Reed

—Appellant Charles Reed was convicted by the court of burglary (violation of Penal Code, § 459) and receiving stolen property (violation of Penal Code, § 496.) He admitted a prior burglary conviction. Probation was revoked on the prior and appellant was sentenced to prison concurrently on all convictions. This appeal is from the judgments in each case.

Uniformed police officers driving a marked police car at 9 :15 at night in a high frequency crime area saw appellant crossing the street carrying a large commercial type clothing bag. They recognized him due to previous interrogations on the street and at the police station. When they approached, he transferred the bag to his other arm, reversed his direction a few steps, and then again reversed and proceeded in his original direction.

They pulled up next to him and asked what was in the bag. *884 He answered that there were some clothes. He did not have any personal identification. The officers, obtaining' his permission to look in the bag, found seven new dresses of assorted sizes, one from one manufacturer, six from another. Appellant explained he purchased them for $20 from a man on the street that morning. He said he did not…

—I concur in the judgment for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in People v. Henze, 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 992 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 545 ], The authorities therein discussed require affirmance of the judgment here under review.

Appellant Charles Reed was convicted by the court of burglary (violation of Penal Code, 459) and receiving stolen property (violation of Penal Code, 496.) He admitted a prior burglary conviction.probation was revoked on the prior and appellant was sentenced to prison concurrently on all convictions. This appeal is from the judgments in each case.

Uniformed police officers driving a marked police car at 9:15 at night in a high frequency crime area saw appellant crossing the street carrying a large commercial type clothing bag. They recognized him due to previous interrogations on the street and at the police station. When they approached, he transferred the bag to his other arm, reversed his direction a few steps, and then again reversed and proceeded in his original direction.

They pulled up next to him and asked what was in the bag. He answered that there were some clothes. He did not have any personal identification. The officers, obtaining his permission to look in the bag, found seven new dresses of assorted sizes, one from one manufacturer, six from another. Appellant explained he purchased them for $20 from a man on the street that morning. He said he did not…