Supervision revocation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Parole) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Length of parole is not subject to plea bargain. (''In re Moser'' (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342, 357.) | Length of parole is not subject to plea bargain. (''In re Moser'' (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342, 357.) | ||
Length of parole is two years, not three years. (''People v. Tan'' (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1.) | |||
Misadvisal of parole is not grounds for reversal. (''Berman v. Cate'' (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 885, 894-895.) | Misadvisal of parole is not grounds for reversal. (''Berman v. Cate'' (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 885, 894-895.) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:37, 31 March 2025
The only reasonable construction of these rules and provisions is that a disposition is involved upon revocation of a probationary term where imposition of sentence had initially been suspended. At such a stage, the sentencing court must pronounce judgment and sentence and if it chooses to impose a state prison sentence rather than probation it must give a statement of reasons in support of that sentence choice. (Accord People v. Jones, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1312–1315, 274 Cal.Rptr. 527.) Slaughter was incorrect in its dictum to the contrary, and we decline to follow it.6
People v. Hawthorne (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 789, 794
Parole
In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780-781
In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 797
People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474.
Length of parole is not subject to plea bargain. (In re Moser (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342, 357.)
Length of parole is two years, not three years. (People v. Tan (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1.)
Misadvisal of parole is not grounds for reversal. (Berman v. Cate (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 885, 894-895.)