(See People v. Propp (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 619, 634 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 690]; and People v. Dunlop (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 314, 317 [ 227 P.2d 281]; and cf. In re Gardo (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 615, 616 [ 239 P.2d 77].) [5] In the absence of such an allegation the admission of defendant that he "served a term of imprisonment therefor in the state prison" in respect of each of the prior convictions cannot be construed as an admission that the terms were in fact separate. ( People v. Collins (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 460, 465 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 595], hearing by Supreme Court denied Sept. 10, 1964. [6] It is established that concurrently served terms do not satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of section 644 of the Penal Code. ( People v. Collins, supra, 228 Cal.App.2d 460, 464; People v. Sukovitzen (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 159, 162-164 [ 291 P.2d 107].)
Authenticated records now before us, however, show that he completed and was discharged from his 1930 sentence before he suffered his 1940 conviction. (See In reWolfson (1947) 30 Cal.2d 20, 26 [ 180 P.2d 326]; In re Gardo (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 615, 616 [ 239 P.2d 77]; People v. Shaw,supra, 237 Cal.App.2d 606, 616.) The sentence for the robbery of Pitzel is set aside and the Adult Authority is directed to exclude that purported sentence from its consideration in fixing petitioner's term.