Kelly

The single point made by appellant for a reversal is that the judgment is void because the punishment imposed is in excess of that prescribed by the statute for the offense of which he was convicted. The conviction was of burglary in the second degree, for which the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment in the state prison, while the judgment imposes an imprisonment of ten years. But section 666 of the Penal Code provides that, where a person has been previously convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, and thereafter commits any offense which upon a first conviction would be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five years, or any less term, such person is punishable upon such subsequent conviction by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not exceeding ten years. In this case the information charged the defendant with having suffered six prior convictions—four for petit larceny, and two for burglary in the second degree; and the minutes show that upon his arraignment “defendant appeared in open court and pleaded not guilty, and admits prior conviction,” which entry must be taken as importing an admission of each and all of…