IN RE: NORCUTT. (1947)

The record before us discloses that the information to which petitioner pleaded guilty, and under which he was adjudged to be an habitual criminal, charged him with the commission of two prior felonies in this state, to-wit: grand theft, for which he was convicted and served terms of imprisonment in a state prison.

Petitioner's sole contention is that said adjudication was erroneous in that the first of said prior convictions involved the theft of a motorcycle, which could not be a felony within the provisions of Section 644 of the penal Code unless the value was shown to exceed the sum of $200 (Section 487, Penal Code), and as the record is barren of either allegation or other showing of the value of the motorcycle, the trial court was without jurisdiction to adjudge him an habitual criminal.

We are entirely in accord with such contention as a general statement of the law in relation to this phase of the Habitual Criminal Act. In re Williams, 76 Cal.App.2d 161, 172 P.2d 558; In re Connell, 68 Cal.App.2d 360, 156 P.2d 483; People v. McChesney, 39 Cal.App.2d 36, 41, 102 P.2d 455; People v. Lohr, 28 Cal.App.2d 397, 82 P.2d 615; People v. Morrison, 26 Cal.App.2d 616, 80 P.2d 94. But although it may be said that petitioner previously has not been twice convicted of felonies enumerated in Section 644 of the Penal Code and that therefore he is entitled to be accorded the benefits as well as the penalties of the law applicable to one who has suffered one, not two, prior convictions, nevertheless it is equally well established that until it appears that the term of imprisonment, as provided by law for the current offense, has been satisfied, the writ is not available. In re Morck, 180 Cal. 384, 181 P. 657; In re Williams, supra; In re Miller, 13 Cal.App. 228, 23 P.2d 1034.

The writ is discharged.

PER CURIAM.