*1 761 original applica- and (which done), has insisted that his upon. accepting the passed Thus, tion be while parole by accepting it, petitioner old law under also insists amendatory act he entitled the benefits without be. This court must This cannot determine detriments. increased whether the or decreased the con- penalty. petitioner, As hold that when we realistically whole, and sidered applicable punishment, increased the and so cannot be made petitioner. petition discharged, order to show cause is and the writ denied. Peek, J., J., J., and Tobriner,

Traynor, C. J dissenting For thereasons stated BURKE, . ante, page 172, 740 Estrada, In re opinion in [48 order within case. 948], I P.2d concur J.,* concurred. Schauer, Dec. 9195. In Bank. 1965.] No.

[Crim. Corpus. KIRK on Habeas ROLLIN re LOY Supreme assign- under Associate the Judicial Council. Chairman of Loy pro. per., Beechinor, Rollin and Robert N. appointment by Supreme Court, for Petitioner. Lynch, Attorney General, Maier, Thomas C. Doris H. *2 Attorney General, Assistant Turner, Deputy Edsel W. Haws and Richard K. Attorneys General, Respondents. for PETERS, presents problem This case the same involved Estrada, ante, p. Cal.Rptr. 172, in re 408 P.2d 948], day problem, this That as to this decided. case, petitioner is whether is entitled to the benefits of a punishment passed ameliorating statute act was committed but before the the after the criminal judgment of conviction case, supra, final. In the Estrada we held an became that ac- entitled to the benefits of the cused man was act. petitioner the rule there announced in the Under instant case to the benefit of the is also entitled act. presently Petitioner is confined in Folsom State Prison judgments. pursuant guilty to three Two of them him found degree robbery in of first violation of section 211 of the third, Code. The which is the in pro Penal ceeding, one involved this issuing checks, totaling $75, is for without sufficient funds in violation of section 476a of the Penal Code.1 judgment At time of rendition of the the of conviction issuing checks, (b) the for subdivision of section of 476a the provided that, Penal Code if the total amount of all checks issuing that the defendant is convicted of $50, does not exceed originally charged issuing 1Petitioner was in three counts with three judgment, 29, 1962, peti $25 cheeks. The entered on June stated that guilty counts, was found tioner of each of the and that three he was by provided January sentenced to the 22, 1964, for term On state the law. a corrected was filed which stated that the three counts were consolidated into one. original There is another matter that should be mentioned. In both the judgments issuing petitioner and corrected for cheeks it is found that separate prior finding served two made this was done. terms for convictions. No such judgments robbery why in It the for the convictions. is not clear issuing A conviction for cheeks without sufficient funds may is not one of those convictions which lead to habitual criminal status Code, prior under section of the Penal and the convictions are not among require in those enumerated section 476a of that code which a special penalty. Therefore, finding prior the of convictions as to this may meaningless. hand, robbery offense is It be noted that the other on may is the crimes one of enumerated section to 644 which lead habitual status. criminal county imprisonment in the by only punishable is the offense (a) of year. subdivision Under jail more than one for not im- section of the violations penalty for other section the prisonment or year than one jail not more county for in the Prior years. more than 14 prison for not in the state of increasing by the conviction of affirmance in by amended (b) was April 1964, subdivision present Under from $50 $100. the amount issuing checks petitioner is convicted who person such as county subject imprisonment totaling be would $75 subject imprisonment state jail only not be would prison. one involved precisely same as the problem is thus penalty imposing the supra. The ease, in the Estrada prior to final issuing amended the checks was ameliorating rule announced punishment. Under the is entitled to that case amendatory statute. long held as he is Petitioner is not entitled to release judgments for his other crimes. He under valid of conviction issuing judgment of conviction for is entitled to have the complete imprison- corrected, checks but he must his terms of for the robberies before he is entitled to his release. *3 granted. Appeal, The writ is The District Second Appellate District, One, Division is directed to recall its People judg- remittitur in v. Crim. vacate Superior ment, and to reverse the Court of County Angeles directions to enter Los with expressed the views herein and accordance with entry after such return authorities to com- plete robbery. his terms for Traynor, J., Tobriner, J., Peek, J., and Dyke, C. Van pro tem.,* concurred. BURKE, J. I dissentfor the reasons stated the dis- opinion senting Estrada, ante, page in In re 172, 408 P.2d 948]. Presiding assignment by the Chairman of Judicial Council.