Parole: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Failure of the court to advise defendant that he will be on parole after prison | Failure of the court to advise defendant that he will be on parole after prison could be not prejudicial. (People v. McMillon (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1363.) | ||
But failure of the court to advise defendant that he will be on parole after prison could be prejudicial. (In re Carabes (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 927.) | |||
Revision as of 04:06, 24 June 2024
Failure of the court to advise defendant that he will be on parole after prison could be not prejudicial. (People v. McMillon (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1363.)
But failure of the court to advise defendant that he will be on parole after prison could be prejudicial. (In re Carabes (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 927.)
Length of parole
Parole Conditions
In re David (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 675 [
Youth Offender Parole
- In re Trejo (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 972
- In re Williams (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 794
- In re Bolton (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 611