RCW 9.75.010 requires as one of the elements of robbery the taking of personal property, without regard to its value, and this court has held that the value of property taken is not an element of the crime of robbery. In re Bailleaux, 26 Wn.2d 60, 173 P.2d 122 (1946). [2] Finally, we find appellant's third contention also to be without merit.

In view of the difficulty and uncertainty this sentence has given rise to when considered in connection with the statute authorizing the penalty for this offense, it is necessary and proper to look to the background circumstances disclosed by the record to see what was intended and what the ends of justice demand. See Nickle v. Reeder, 144 Colo. 593, 357 P.2d 921; State v. Williams, 30 Wn.2d 18, 190 P.2d 734; Ex parte Bailleaux, 26 Wn.2d 60, 173 P.2d 122. See also 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1585.

[1] The form or sufficiency of the information cannot be reviewed by a writ of habeas corpus. In re Grieve, 22 Wn.2d 902, 158 P.2d 73; In re Bailleaux, 26 Wn.2d 60, 173 P.2d 122. The only question before us is whether the judgment, including the sentence upon which the petitioner for such writ is held in confinement, is void on its face.

The judgment is valid and fair upon its face. It shows the compliance with all the requirements of law relative to trial, judgment, and sentence in criminal actions, and therefore is not subject to attack by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1075 [P.P.C. § 58-23]; In re Grieve, 22 Wn.2d 902, 158 P.2d 73; In re Bailleaux, ante p. 60, 173 P.2d 122. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.