¶1ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶2As stated in our original opinion, authority for holding relator is by virtue of the judgment and sentence in cause No. 10,578 upon the offense of robbery, disregarding the allegations of former convictions.
¶3*372Our attention is directed to the sentence pronounced upon such judgment which fails to give effect to the indeterminate sentence law.
¶4The punishment provided by law for the offense of ordinary robbery is not less than five years nor more than life in the penitentiary and the indeterminate sentence law applies. See Garsee v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 497, 35 S.W. (2) 157. However, a conviction for a felony with enhancement of punishment under Art. 63, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., by reason of two prior convictions of a felony less than capital has no maximum or minimum, but is fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for life. See Price v. State, 150 Tex. Cr. R. 161, 199 S.W. (2) 168; Ex Parte Massey, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 172, 191 S.W. (2) 877; Ex Parte Eason, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 517, 229 S.W. (2) 73.
¶5We agree that appelant is entitled to have his sentence construed as an indeterminate sentence of not less than five years nor more than life, though it may not be reformed in this collateral proceeding. See Ex Parte Hatfield, (Page 92 of this volume), 238 S.W. (2) 788.
¶6As to the other contentions of relator, we remain convinced that they were properly disposed of in the original opinion.
¶7Relator not being entitled to discharge from the indeterminate sentence in cause No. 10,578, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
¶8Opinion approved by the Court.