Barboza

Defendant Albert Betres Barboza was convicted after jury trial of selling a narcotic on or about January 22, 1962, in violation of section 11501 of the Health and Safety Code. He admitted four prior felony convictions. The defendant’s motions for a probation report and for a new trial were denied, and he was sentenced to the state prison *443 for the term prescribed by law. Defendant appeals from the judgment.

Four claims of error are advanced by the defendant, namely, (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) error in allowing the prosecution to recall the defendant for the purpose of impeaching him after both sides rested, (3) error in cross-examination of defendant regarding the four prior convictions without affirmatively stating that the examination was for impeachment purposes only, and (4) error in refusing to allow defendant to have a probation report filed even though he was not eligible for probation.

An appellate court is bound by the evidence favorable to respondent, as explained in People v. Newland, 15 Cal. 2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]. It is there said, in part: “ ‘We must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably…