PER CURIAM.
The application for hearing in this court after decision in the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District ( 150 P. 412) is denied.
It appears to be urged in the petition that the opinion of the District Court of Appeal is uncertain as to which of the two judgments referred to therein is void. This contention is based on the sentence reading as follows:
" This court, however, takes the view that the first judgment rendered by the court on the 14th of April, 1914, was not void, but was simply an erroneous judgment."
The opinion as a whole clearly shows that the date therein specified, namely, " 14th of April, 1914," was a clerical error in that opinion, and that the judgment declared to be " not void" was the first judgment pronounced, namely, that pronounced on March 10, 1914. We concur entirely in the views of the District Court of Appeal in this regard. Ex parte Gilmore, 71 Cal. 624, 12 P. 800, relied on by defendant, is not in point. There the first judgment was absolutely void, and the court which rendered the same, as this court stated, had power to call the prisoner before it, vacate the illegal sentence, and impose one in accordance with law. Petitioner expresses some doubt as to the effect of the decision of the District Court of Appeal in so far as the defendant is concerned. The effect of the opinion is clear enough. The judgment of March 10, 1914, remains in force as the only judgment in the case, valid for such portion of the imprisonment specified therein as does not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense for which the defendant was convicted.