How have the courts treated prior criminal convictions in the context of a charge of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life?

Appellant next poses the alternative contention that the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion in admitting two prior felony convictions in order to prove the current charge. (People v. Patino, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at pp. 993-994, 206 Cal.Rptr. 762.) He argues that admission of more than one prior felony was "senseless 'overkill' " and curiously, that the court "clearly erred in permitting the prosecutor to present evidence of appellant's 1987 conviction," the prior felony which the jury found not true. His argument rests on Patino which held it error (albeit harmless in that case) for the trial court to admit evidence "of defendant's multiple prior felony convictions." Appellant further complained at trial and again on appeal that the introduction of the March 30, 1988, felony petty theft conviction with a prior constituted cumulative evidence and amounted to "overkill," especially in view of the fact that he was also charged with the May 14, 1987, petty theft with a prior. We reject appellant's contentions for several reasons.