In People v. Pierson (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 130, the accused was convicted of committing petty theft while having a prior theft-related conviction. On appeal, he argued that the trial court had failed to make a true finding on the prior conviction, as required by Penal Code section 1158. ( Id. at p. 132.) The appellate court concluded the record was "ambiguous as to whether the trial judge made a separate finding on the current charge and the priors." ( Id. at p. 133.) Nevertheless, the court went on to hold the lack of a separate finding was "a nonprejudicial irregularity" under the facts of the case. ( Id. at p. 134.) The court explained: "It is abundantly clear that defendant did suffer the prior convictions. The People offered and the court received documents to prove the priors. They were admitted with a stipulation from the defense that defendant was the person named therein. A very similar situation occurred in People v. Cooks (1965) 235 Cal. App. 2d 6, where the court stated: 'In the present case the prior conviction and imprisonment were clearly shown by unchallenged documentary proof. The only issue raised by the testimony of the defendant was whether at the time of the current offense he was too drunk to have any intent to steal. There was no possible reason for not finding the previous conviction true. Under the circumstances the court's statement at the close of the case cannot reasonably be construed as a finding in favor of the defendant on the prior. Certainly no one present construed it as such. . . . The trial court's finding was irregular, but this court cannot construe it as an acquittal.'" ( People v. Pierson, supra, 273 Cal. App. 2d at p. 134.)