People v. Suchal CA3

Filed 4/8/25 P. v. Suchal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100919

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2023-0013221) v.

MALK MIRACLE SUCHAI,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Malk Miracle Suchai appeals from a judgment imposed in which the trial court advised that he would be subject to parole under Penal Code section 30001 when released from prison. Defendant claims the trial court’s advisement should be “clarified” to reflect a period of parole supervision of two years, pursuant to section 3000.01. We will affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND On December 7, 2023, defendant assaulted two law enforcement officers by “ramming” the car he was driving into the car they were driving. The People charged defendant with numerous criminal offenses including assaulting a peace officer with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (c)). Defendant plead no contest to assault with a deadly weapon. While taking defendant’s plea, the trial court advised defendant he may be placed on parole after serving his prison term, “[o]nce you finish serving that time on this charge, you may then be placed on parole for up to three years.” The court also advised defendant he was pleading to a strike offense. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People moved the trial court to dismiss the remaining charges. The court granted the People’s motion and sentenced defendant to a term of three years in state prison. The court also awarded defendant 224 days of custody credit. Defendant appeals with a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Defendant contends this court must clarify the judgment to reflect that his eventual parole period may be two years, not three, pursuant to section 3000.01. Because the trial court did not set the parole term, but instead merely advised defendant of a possible parole term, we do not find that the judgment should be “clarified.” Section 3000.01 governs periods of parole for individuals released from prison on or after July 1, 2020, and who are subject to parole supervision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under section 3000.08. (§ 3000.01, subd. (a), added by Stats. 2020, ch. 29, § 18, eff. Aug. 6, 2020.) It limits, with exceptions not applicable here, the period of parole for an inmate serving a determinate term to two years. (§ 3000.01, subd. (b)(1).) Although the Legislature added section 3000.01, “[it] did not amend the relevant provisions of sections 3000 and 3000.08, which still provide the