Howard

This is an appeal from a final judgment of conviction had in the superior court of Alameda County, by which the defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree. The defendant’s motion for a new trial having been denied, he appeals from the judgment and order.

The defendant was charged with a prior conviction of as sault to murder, and the first point made in his behalf is that, although he pleaded guilty to the prior conviction, that part of the information was read to the jury, contrary to section 1093 of the Penal Code. This point is stated as follows in appellant’s brief: “The record here explicitly states that the defendant admitted the ‘prior’ when arraigned; and that thereafter the information was read by the clerk to the jury, it being the duty of the clerk under section 1093 of the Penal Code to read the information to the jury. In the body of the information thus read is an averment of the ‘prior,’ contrary to the usual practice of annexing to the pleading a printed slip alleging the ‘prior.’ ”

The practice in many superior courts is to allege the “prior” in the information, and this is the better practice. Upon the foregoing statement this court cannot say that…