Parole

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

sequence **345 of a felony conviction and prison term.” (Ibid.) It need not be charged or alleged, and “[n]either the prosecution nor the sentencing court has the authority to alter the applicable term of parole established by the Legislature. [Citations.]” (In re Moser (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342, 357, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 723, 862 P.2d 723, fn. omitted.) People v. VonWahlde (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1187, 1197 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 337, 344–345]

People v. Avila (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1455.

In re Moser (1983) 6 Cal.4th 342

Watson v. Clarke (9th Cir. 2002) 28 Fed. Appx. 678

Parole Conditions

In re David (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 675

People v. Austin (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 778.

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