1

Filed 12/31/20 (unmodified opn. attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE 

 

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DARRYL JOHNSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

 A158081

 (Alameda County Super. Ct.

 No. 19-CR-008101)

 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

 NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

 PETITION FOR REHEARING 

 DENIED 

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 9, 2020, is 

modified in the following respect: 

At pages 1-2, delete the following text:

“On August 20, 2007, while on parole, he was convicted of grand theft 

and possession of controlled substances for sale. For these two new 

convictions, the trial court deemed defendant’s sentences served but 

placed him on a new, overlapping three-year parole term to begin on 

August 20, 2007.”

The deleted text is to be replaced with the following text:

“Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant on two other 

convictions he previously sustained—a 2003 grand theft conviction and 

a 2004 conviction for possession of controlled substances for sale. For 

these convictions, the court deemed defendant's sentences served but 
2

placed him on a new, overlapping three-year parole term to begin on 

August 20, 2007.”

This modification does not change the judgment. 

Defendant’s petition for rehearing, filed December 22, 2020, is 

denied.

Date: 12/31/2020 __FUJISAKI, J. Acting P.J.

A158081/People v. Johnson
3

Trial Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Scott Patton

Counsel: Office of Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, Attorney 

General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sara J. 

Romano, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Michael G. Lagrama, 

Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

First District Appellate Project, Jonathan Soglin, Jeremy 

Price, and Nathaniel Miller, for Defendant and Respondent. 
1

Filed 12/9/20 (unmodified opinion)

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DARRYL JOHNSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

 A158081

 (Alameda County Super. Ct.

 No. 19-CR-008101)

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 

appeals from the trial court’s order revoking and restoring defendant Darryl 

Johnson’s parole, setting a new parole discharge date, and “modify[ing] the 

conditions of his parole to include no supervision” so that defendant would 

“not be subject to parole supervision during the remainder of his parole 

term.” CDCR contends the court: (1) miscalculated defendant’s parole 

discharge date; and (2) had no authority to terminate defendant’s “parole 

supervision.” We agree with both contentions and reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2006, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property and

sentenced to two years in prison. He was released on parole in June 2007, 

subject to a three-year parole term. On August 20, 2007, while on parole, he

was convicted of grand theft and possession of controlled substances for sale. 

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is 

certified for publication with the exception of the following portion of the 

Discussion: Parole Discharge Date.
2

For these two new convictions, the trial court deemed defendant’s sentences 

served but placed him on a new, overlapping three-year parole term to begin 

on August 20, 2007. After deducting custody credits, defendant’s parole was 

scheduled to end on August 16, 2010. After his release, defendant absconded 

from parole supervision 11 times, for a total of 3,215 days, and was in jail on 

parole violations nine times, for a total of 699 days.

On May 23, 2019, CDCR filed a petition to revoke defendant’s parole. 

At a hearing on the petition, the trial court asked why CDCR was “wasting

time” “keeping him on parole” when he had not “committed any felonious 

conduct” in many years and “resources would be better spent on people [who] 

are seeking the resources or are . . . committing new crimes.” A parole officer 

responded that defendant had not completed parole because “[a]s you know 

when they are suspended their time stops[;] they don’t get credit for th[at]

time.” “If he’s been out in the wind for six years, we don’t know that he’s

been law abiding because he hasn’t given us an opportunity to supervise 

him.” After further discussion, the court stated it had the “authority to 

terminate his parole” and proceeded to do so after obtaining an admission 

from defendant that he violated parole by absconding “since 2013.” The court 

issued a written order revoking, restoring, and terminating defendant’s 

parole, finding that while defendant “consistently failed to report and his 

whereabouts have gone unknown,” “continuing [him] on parole would not 

serve the interest of society. . . .” 

CDCR moved for reconsideration on the grounds that defendant’s 

discharge date—which CDCR calculated as June 15, 2020—had not passed 

and that the trial court exceeded its authority by terminating his parole. 

Defendant opposed reconsideration but argued in the alternative that “if the 

Court decides to reconsider its decision, the Court should modify 
3

[defendant’s] parole conditions and terminate supervision.” The court 

granted CDCR’s motion for reconsideration stating it “acted in excess of 

jurisdiction” by terminating defendant’s parole. The court found defendant

absconded from parole for a total of 3,225 days (the parties agree the actual 

number is 3,215 days) and that the new parole discharge date was September 

8, 2019. The court further “modifie[d] the conditions of [defendant’s] parole 

to include no supervision” and ordered that defendant “shall not be subject to 

parole supervision during the remainder of his parole term.” CDCR appeals.1

DISCUSSION

Parole Discharge Date

As explained below, the trial court miscalculated defendant’s parole 

discharge date and the correct discharge date at the time of the order was

June 4, 2020.

The “period immediately following incarceration is critical to successful 

reintegration of the offender into society and to positive citizenship.” 

(Pen. Code, § 3000, subd. (a)(1).)2 Thus, an offender released from 

incarceration after serving a prison sentence is subject to a parole term, 

which is usually three years. (§ 3000, subd. (b)(1), (2)(A).) “Upon successful 

completion of parole, or at the end of the maximum statutory period of 

parole,” “whichever is earlier, the [parolee] shall be discharged from” parole. 

(§ 3000, subd. (b)(6).) “The date of the maximum statutory period of parole 

. . . shall be computed from the date of initial parole and shall be a period 

1 Defendant argues the appeal must be dismissed as moot as the parole 

discharge date has passed and this court therefore cannot provide effective 

relief. We disagree. There is nothing in the record indicating defendant has 

successfully completed parole; for example, he may have extended the 

discharge date further by again absconding.

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
4

chronologically determined. Time during which parole is suspended because 

the prisoner has absconded or has been returned to custody as a parole 

violator shall not be credited toward any period of parole. . . .” (Ibid.) In 

other words, a parole term is extended by the number of days the parolee 

absconds or is in jail for parole violations. (Ibid.; People v. Pearl (2009) 

172 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1291 (Pearl).) 

A parole term is extended without limit for the entire time a parolee 

absconds from parole under section 3064, which provides: “From and after 

the suspension or revocation of the parole of any prisoner and until his return 

to custody he is an escapee and fugitive from justice and no part of the time 

during which he is an escapee and fugitive from justice shall be part of his 

term.” (Italics added.) (Pearl, supra, at p. 1290; People v. Townsend (2020) 

53 Cal.App.5th 888, 893–894 (Townsend).) In contrast, there is a limit on 

how long a parole term can be extended by time spent in custody on parole 

violations under section 3000 subdivision (b)(6)(A), which provides: “Except 

as provided in Section 3064 [regarding absconded days], in no case may a 

prisoner subject to three years on parole be retained under parole supervision 

or in custody for a period longer than four years from the date of his or her 

initial parole.” (Pearl, supra, at p. 1291; Townsend, supra, at pp. 893–894.) 

Courts have interpreted the limitation of “four years from the date of 

his or her initial parole” in section 3000 subdivision (b)(6)(A) to mean that 

there is a one-year cap (from three years to four years) on parole extensions 

for time spent in custody on parole violations. (Pearl, supra, at p. 1291; 

Townsend, supra, at pp. 893–894.) “That is, time spent absconding from 

parole supervision suspends the parole period indefinitely, while” “ ‘ “ ‘[t]ime 

spent in custody on a parole violation . . . extends the parole period’ ” ’ such 

that a parolee ‘ “ ‘may not be retained on parole supervision or in custody on a 
5

parole violation for more than 4 years.’ ” ’ ” (Townsend, supra, at pp. 893–

894, italics added, quoting Pearl, supra, at p. 1291.) Applying these 

principles, the Townsend court extended the defendant’s parole discharge 

date by the 2,309 days he absconded from parole, plus the 334 days he spent 

in custody for parole violations, stating it was extending the parole term by 

the full 334 days because 334 days is less than the one-year maximum 

extension for in-custody time. 

Here, defendant would have been discharged from parole on August 16, 

2010 had he not absconded for 3,215 days and spent 699 days in custody for 

parole violations. Thus, his parole discharge date was extended by 3,215 

days for absconding plus the one-year (365 days) maximum for in-custody 

time, for a total of 3,580 days, i.e., to June 4, 2020. The trial court therefore 

erred in finding defendant’s parole discharge date was September 8, 2019.

Defendant asserts the correct date was actually “June 5, 2019, or, in 

the alternative, . . . December 4, 2019.”3 Defendant’s calculations are based 

on his argument, also made by the defendant in Townsend, that the four-year 

limit contained in section 3000 subdivision (b)(6)(A)—i.e., “four years from 

the date of his or her initial parole”— means that CDCR’s ability to extend 

his parole term for time spent in custody for parole violations expired four 

years from the original date his parole began and, therefore, the court lacked 

authority to extend his parole term based on in-custody days served after the 

four-year mark. (Townsend, supra, at p. 895.)

3 Defendant requests judicial notice of the same trial judge’s orders in 

another case, Townsend, as they may “shed light” on the judge’s “reasoning” 

in calculating the discharge date in the instant case. In light of defendant’s 

agreement that the September 8, 2019 date is incorrect, and the fact that the 

Townsend opinion thoroughly explained and rejected the trial judge’s method 

of calculating the discharge date, we deny the request for judicial notice on 

relevance grounds.
6

The Townsend court rejected this argument, as do we. (Ibid.) “[W]here 

a parolee absconds early, section 3064 tolls the initial four-year maximum 

period of parole. . . . Applying this tolling provision, none of the 2,309 days 

Townsend spent absconding . . . counts against the four-year statutory 

maximum under section 3000 [subdivision] (b)(6)(A). Townsend’s maximum 

statutory period of parole was four years . . . plus the time Townsend spent 

absconding from parole supervision.” (Townsend, supra, at pp. 895–896, 

italics added.) Similarly, here, because section 3064 tolled the initial fouryear maximum period of parole, none of the 3,215 days defendant spent 

absconding counted against the four-year maximum, and defendant’s 

discharge date was extended by the full 3,215 days plus the one-year 

maximum (365 out of 699 days) for time spent in jail on parole violations, for 

a total of 3,580 days—from August 16, 2010 to June 4, 2020.

Termination of Parole Supervision

We conclude the trial court erred in terminating defendant’s “parole 

supervision.” 

The court, after acknowledging it lacked the authority to terminate 

defendant’s parole early as it had originally intended, decided instead to 

“modif[y] the conditions of his parole to include no supervision” and ordered 

that defendant “shall not be subject to parole supervision during the

remainder of his parole term.” In doing so, the court cited section 1203.2 

subdivision (b)(1): “Upon its own motion or upon the petition of the 

supervised person, the probation or parole officer, or the district attorney, the 

court may modify, revoke, or terminate supervision of the person pursuant to 

this subdivision, except that the court shall not terminate parole pursuant to 

this section.” (Italics added.) In particular, the court appears to have

interpreted the first italicized term “terminate supervision” to mean that 
7

“supervision” was a condition of parole that could be stricken. This 

interpretation is not supported by the statutory language.

“ ‘ “We begin with the plain language of the statute, affording the words 

of the provision their ordinary and usual meaning and viewing them in their 

statutory context, because the language employed in the Legislature’s 

enactment generally is the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.” 

[Citations.] The plain meaning controls if there is no ambiguity in the 

statutory language.’ [Citation.] In interpreting a statutory provision, ‘our 

task is to select the construction that comports most closely with the 

Legislature’s apparent intent, with a view to promoting rather than defeating 

the statutes’ general purpose, and to avoid a construction that would lead to 

unreasonable, impractical, or arbitrary results.’ [Citation.]” (Poole v. Orange 

County Fire Authority (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1378, 1385.) 

Section 1203.2 vests a court with the authority to preside over 

revocation hearings when a “supervised person” violates a term or condition 

of his or her “supervision.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) The statute does not 

explicitly define “supervision” but uses the word throughout the statute to 

refer to the different types of supervision—such as probation or parole—

available to individuals released from custody. For example, subdivision (a), 

which provides that a “supervised person” may be rearrested for violations of 

“any term or condition of the person’s supervision,” lists the following types of 

“supervision” covered by the statute: (1) probation; (2) mandatory 

supervision; (3) postrelease community supervision (PCRS); and (4) parole. 

(§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) 

The statute also states twice that the court has the authority to 

“terminate” all types of “supervision” as a sanction for violating terms or 

conditions, except that it may not terminate one type of supervision—parole. 
8

(§ 1203.2, subds. (a), (b)(1); People v. Johnson (2020) 45 Cal.App.4th 379, 397 

(Johnson).) Specifically, subdivision (a) states that upon the supervised 

person’s rearrest, the court “may revoke and terminate the supervision of the 

person” under certain circumstances. (Italics added.) “However, the court 

shall not terminate parole pursuant to this section.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) 

Subdivision (b)(1) repeats this language, stating that “the court may modify, 

revoke, or terminate supervision of the person . . . except that the court shall 

not terminate parole.” (Italics added.) In other words, upon a supervised 

person’s rearrest or a finding that the person has violated terms or conditions 

of the supervision, the court has the authority to terminate all types of 

supervision—e.g., probation, mandatory supervision, PRCS—except that it 

cannot terminate one type of supervision, parole. 

“ ‘It is presumed, in the absence of anything in the statute to the 

contrary, that a repeated phrase or word in a statute is used in the same 

sense throughout.’ ” (People v. Jones (1988) 46 Cal.3d 585, 595.) When read 

in context, we conclude the word “supervision” as used throughout the statute 

refers to the different types of supervision available to individuals released 

from custody—probation, mandatory supervision, PCRS, and parole—and 

that the phrase repeated twice in section 1203.2 that the court may 

“terminate supervision” “except that the court shall not terminate parole” 

means the court has the authority to terminate all types of “supervision” as a 

sanction for violations of terms and conditions, except that it may not 

terminate parole.

Johnson, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 394 supports our conclusion. 

There, the court similarly defined the word “supervision” to refer to the 

different types of supervision, stating, “section 1203.2 pertains to proceedings 

relating to persons on several different types of supervision (i.e., probation, 
9

parole, PRCS and mandatory supervision).” (Johnson, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 

at p. 394.) The court also interpreted the term “terminate supervision” to 

refer to the termination of a type of supervision and explained that trial 

courts are authorized to terminate all types of supervision except parole 

because “an order terminating parole as a sanction for a parole violation 

would mean a return of the parolee to prison because he has not been 

successful on parole. However, as part of realignment the Legislature 

decided to provide that sanction only for a very limited class of parolees.” (Id. 

at p. 397.) We conclude the trial court erred in interpreting section 1203.2 to 

mean it had the authority to terminate “parole supervision,” and in ordering 

that defendant “not be supervised for the remainder of his parole term.”4

Finally, the parties disagree about the effect of the trial court’s order 

terminating “parole supervision” on defendant’s parole status. CDCR argues 

that by ordering the termination of “parole supervision” altogether, the court

“indirectly” and “effectively discharged [defendant] from CDCR’s custody, 

where parole officers could neither monitor [his] whereabouts nor require him 

to participate in rehabilitative counseling.” In other words, it appears

CDCR’s position is that defendant has not been on parole since the date of 

the order and therefore has the same number of days remaining on his parole 

4 The trial court also cited People v. VonWahlde (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 

1187, 1198, which is inapposite as it simply states, in dictum and in a 

different context, without analysis or explanation or citation to authority, 

that the trial court would have “had the authority to terminate parole 

supervision.” To the extent, if any, these statements regarding “parole 

supervision” can be interpreted to mean that section 1203.2 authorizes courts 

to terminate “parole supervision,” we disagree. Neither the trial court nor 

the parties cited any authority holding a trial court is authorized to modify 

parole to “terminate” “parole supervision,” or that “unsupervised parole” is an 

option for parolees in California. We note that at the hearing on CDCR’s 

petition, defendant asked, “Could I get unsupervised[?]” and the parole officer 

responded there was no such thing as “unsupervised parole.” 
10

term as he did as of the date of the court’s order. Defendant disagrees and 

asserts that “parole supervision” is merely one aspect of parole and that other 

important conditions remain in place, e.g., being subject to warrantless 

searches, arrest, parole revocation, and sanctions for violations of any parole 

conditions. Thus, defendant would argue he has been serving the remainder 

of his parole term during the pendency of this appeal and that those days 

should be counted towards satisfying his parole term.

Based on the record before us, and in light of the fact that we do not 

know what has transpired since the trial court’s order, we conclude that the

effect the order has had on defendant’s parole discharge date is not for us to

determine at this time. (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City

(2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1573 [we do not decide issues that are not ripe 

for appeal]; In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405, 413–414 [appellate 

courts rarely accept postjudgment evidence or evidence developed after the 

challenged ruling is made].) We do not know whether the order terminating 

“parole supervision” had the effect of actually terminating all aspects of 

parole supervision. We do not know whether CDCR has continued to satisfy 

the objectives of parole by, for example, providing counseling or housing 

assistance, or by monitoring the payment of fines or fees. (See In re Roberts

(2005) 36 Cal.4th 575, 590 [maintaining public safety and ensuring parolees’ 

rehabilitation are the twin objectives of parole supervision].) We also do not 

know if defendant has again absconded from parole. On remand, the trial 

court shall determine in the first instance whether defendant has served any 

days on parole since the date of its order and recalculate his parole discharge 

date in light of that determination and the principles set forth in this opinion. 
11

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order setting September 8, 2019 as defendant’s parole 

discharge date and terminating “parole supervision” under section 1203.2 for 

the remainder of his parole term is reversed. The matter is remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
12

_________________________

Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Fujisaki, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Jackson, J.

A158081/People v. Johnson
13

Trial Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Scott Patton

Counsel: Office of Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, Attorney 

General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Sara J. Romano, Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General, Michael G. Lagrama, Deputy Attorney General, 

for Plaintiff and Appellant.

First District Appellate Project, Jonathan Soglin, Jeremy 

Price, and Nathaniel Miller, for Defendant and 

Respondent.