Oliver

Defendant was informed against for the crime of grand larceny, and by the information also accused of a previous conviction of burglary. He confessed the pre-vious conviction and pleaded not guilty to the charge of grand larceny.

Upon the trial of the offense charged the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the' defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the term of seven years.

He appeals from the judgment, from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial, and from an order of that court overruling his motion in arrest of judgment.

The first point made on the appeal is that the sentence imposed (seven years) is- less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the statute (Pen. Code, sec. 666) in eases of conviction of grand larceny after a previous conviction of burglary (ten years), and therefore void. As said in In re Reed, 143 Cal. 634 , [ 101 Am. St. Rep. 138 , 77 Pac. 660 ], such a judgment is not void; it is within and not in excess of the statute (Ex parte Soto, 88 Cal. 629, [ 26 Pac. 530 ]). Even where the term imposed is in excess of the maximum fixed by the statute, it is merely erroneous, and if the judgment be…