Hale

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The points urged for reversal are stated in the opening brief as follows: Insufficiency of identification; error of court in admitting evidence as to identification in city prison; misconduct of district attorney; error in admitting testimony of police officer; error in instructions.

Defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he urges, in addition, that the indeterminate sentence law (Pen. Code, sec. 1168), is unconstitutional and void, because, in effect, a usurpation by the state board of prison directors of the exclusive executive power of the governor to commute sentences or grant pardons, and also as obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution, and to article I, sections 11 and 21, and article IV, section 25, subdivisions 2, 26, and 33, of the state constitution.

Briefly, the record tells the story of the crime as follows: Two men entered a soft-drink place on Bryant Street, in San Francisco, on October 5, 1922, at about 8:30 o ’clock in the evening. The entry was peaceful, there was no…