What is the state of the law regarding prior convictions?

'He erroneously asserts that the court, after recalling him and finding the prior convictions true, permitted the judgment to remain unencumbered with the priors. The record is contrary. The judgment reflects the two prior convictions. The court under the circumstances had the power and authority to consider the alleged priors and correct its original pronouncement. (See People v. Thomas (1959) 52 Cal.2d 521, 529--536 (342 P.2d 889).) The defect was

Page 700

'Petitioner urges that there was no power to consider the priors after the original pronouncement of judgment because thereafter the complaint was no longer 'pending' as provided in Penal Code section 969 1/2. This contention overlooks the fact that the amendments, which charged the prior convictions, were properly filed while the complaint was pending and before any attempt was made to pronounce sentence. Since they were undisposed of at the time of the original pronouncement, the court properly reopened the case to dispose of them. (People v. Thomas, supra.)