Michael J. CRAIG v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado ( 1999 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-05-14">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/885970034" data-vids="885970034" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">986 P.2d 951</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Michael J. CRAIG</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span>-<span class="ldml-role">Appellant</span></span>,</b><b class="ldml-bold">
v.</b><b class="ldml-bold">
<span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span>-<span class="ldml-role">Appellee</span></span>.</b></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-cite">No. 99SA159</span>.</b></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc.</b></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-date">October 4, 1999</span>.</b></p></div>
<div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="185" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_185" data-val="956" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> <span data-paragraph-id="185" data-sentence-id="186" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">James O. Simpson</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, Attorney for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span>-<span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Appellant</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="256" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"> <span data-paragraph-id="256" data-sentence-id="264" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Ken Salazar</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">John Daniel Dailey</span></span>, Assistant Solicitor General, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Julia A. Thomas</span></span>, Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Appellate Division Denver</span>, Colorado, Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span>-<span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Appellee</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="460" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"> <span data-paragraph-id="460" data-sentence-id="468" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">David F. Vela</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado State <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Kathleen A. Lord</span></span>, Chief Appellate Deputy, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Karen N. Taylor</span></span>, Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">State <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">the Defendant</span></span>-<span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Appellant</span></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="679" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"> <span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (MARTINEZ)"><span data-paragraph-id="679" data-sentence-id="687" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MARTINEZ</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="740" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="740" data-sentence-id="748" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Michael Craig</span> initiated this appeal following <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s denial of his <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_748"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> motion</span> seeking relief from his plea-bargained sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="740" data-sentence-id="900" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> accepted transfer <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_921" data-val="957" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> of the matter <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(along with a similar case)</span><a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a> from <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> in order to address the relationship among the plea agreement, the advisement, and the mandatory parole requirement set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span>, 6 C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1166" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1166" data-sentence-id="1174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> hold that issues of mandatory parole can only render invalid <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s waiver of constitutional rights associated with a plea of guilty in two discrete respects.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1166" data-sentence-id="1343" class="ldml-sentence">First, if <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> is explicitly promised a sentence related to mandatory parole which is contrary to <span class="ldml-entity">the statutes</span>, and such a promise is a material part of the plea agreement, then <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s plea is invalid.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1166" data-sentence-id="1561" class="ldml-sentence">Such an agreement can never result in a finding of breach and an order of specific enforcement because <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> may not uphold a negotiated plea that has as its object an illegal sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1166" data-sentence-id="1752" class="ldml-sentence">Second, a plea that is entered without an adequate advisement of the direct consequence of mandatory parole is constitutionally infirm and subject to withdrawal unless the infirmity is harmless or can be rendered harmless by a modified legal sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1166" data-sentence-id="2004" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also hold that the omission of mandatory parole from the mittimus should be read as imposing mandatory parole and must, therefore, be corrected by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2171" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2171" data-sentence-id="2179" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">the instant case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that Craig was neither offered an improper inducement with regard to mandatory parole, nor inadequately advised as to this consequence of his plea.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2171" data-sentence-id="2360" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, the post-conviction <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> correctly denied relief.</span>
</p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label=" I.
" data-ordinal_end="1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_2424" data-value="I." data-ordinal_start="1" data-specifier="I" data-parsed="true" id="heading_2424"><span data-paragraph-id="2424" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2424" data-sentence-id="2432" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">I.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="2435" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2435" data-sentence-id="2443" class="ldml-sentence">Following Craig's <span class="ldml-entity">1994</span> arrest on various charges, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> and defense <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> entered into plea negotiations with the district attorney.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2435" data-sentence-id="2575" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> eventually agreed to a proposed disposition and submitted it to <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> for approval pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2575"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 11</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2705" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2705" data-sentence-id="2713" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> conducted a providency hearing, at which time several documents related to the plea were tendered.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2705" data-sentence-id="2828" class="ldml-sentence">A <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"WRITTEN PLEA AGREEMENT"</span> embodied <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' understanding that, in exchange for <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> dismissing a first degree burglary charge <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(and withdrawing recently filed habitual criminal counts)</span>, Craig would enter a plea of guilty on the remaining charges of second degree burglary and second degree assault, both class four felonies.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2705" data-sentence-id="3164" class="ldml-sentence">The written agreement also indicated that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"stipulated to the following sentence concessions: <i class="ldml-italics">stipulated 5 year DOC <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span>]</span>, both <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, concurrent, consecutive <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[to]</span> present sentence.</i>"</span><a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2705" data-sentence-id="3384" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="3402" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3402" data-sentence-id="3410" class="ldml-sentence">Another form, entitled <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"REQUEST TO PLEAD GUILTY <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3410"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 11</span></a></span> Advisement)</span>"</span> was also completed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3402" data-sentence-id="3500" class="ldml-sentence">By his signature on this document <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(and his initials on each paragraph)</span>, Craig indicated his awareness of several important principles.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3402" data-sentence-id="3635" class="ldml-sentence">In particular, paragraph fourteen of the advisement form provided: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"I know that I could be required to serve up to five years on parole <i class="ldml-italics">after</i> serving a sentence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3402" data-sentence-id="3798" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="3816" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3816" data-sentence-id="3824" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, a document entitled <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"STATEMENT OF <span class="ldml-entity">COUNSEL</span>"</span> was completed by Craig's attorney, and included the following certification:</span>
</p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3953" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3953" class="ldml-sentence">I have fully discussed with <span class="ldml-entity">the Defendant</span> and am satisfied <span class="ldml-entity">the Defendant</span> understands each and every element of the charge<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(s)</span> to which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span>/<span class="ldml-entity">she</span> is pleading guilty <i class="ldml-italics">as well as the possible sentence for the conviction<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(s)</span>.</i></span>
</blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="4169" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="4177" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="4195" class="ldml-sentence">During the course of the providency hearing, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> advised Craig on several topics.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="4289" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> was informed of the constitutional rights associated with trial that would be waived as a result of the plea disposition and was told, in detail, exactly what <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecutor</span> would be required to prove in order to obtain convictions at a trial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="4536" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> confirmed that Craig had reviewed all of the plea documents with his attorney, and determined that Craig had no questions regarding the proposed plea or any of the matters indicated in the forms <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had completed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="4772" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> noted <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_4788" data-val="958" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> that the proposed plea disposition was for a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"stipulated five year DOC sentence on both <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, with those to run concurrent,"</span> and further explained that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"there's three years of mandatory parole on a Class Four Felony."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="5008" class="ldml-sentence">Craig indicated that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> understood the penalties and wished to proceed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="5080" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> accepted the guilty pleas and made written findings that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="5213" class="ldml-sentence">Craig was sentenced to five years in the <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span> on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently as per the agreement of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4169" data-sentence-id="5371" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> did not include a notation on the mittimus reflecting the mandatory parole period required by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5371"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="5520" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5520" data-sentence-id="5528" class="ldml-sentence">On <span class="ldml-entity">June 17, 1997</span>, Craig filed a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5528"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">motion for post-conviction relief</span> claiming that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had not been advised of the mandatory parole requirement <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"while engaging in plea negotiations, on his written plea agreement, or during his providency and sentencing hearing."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5520" data-sentence-id="5802" class="ldml-sentence">Asserting that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> would not have pleaded guilty if <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had known of the additional mandatory parole period, Craig claimed that his plea was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not voluntarily and intelligently given and should not have been accepted by <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5520" data-sentence-id="6031" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, Craig complained that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he term of mandatory parole imposed upon <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> exceeds his maximum, under the plea agreement, of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[f]</span>ive years."</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="6190" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6190" data-sentence-id="6198" class="ldml-sentence">Following the post-conviction <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>'s denial of the motion, Craig initiated this appeal.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6190" data-sentence-id="6287" class="ldml-sentence">On its own motion, and pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-4-109, 5 C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 50<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> requested that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> accept transfer of the dispute prior to decision.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6190" data-sentence-id="6463" class="ldml-sentence">Because of the number of similar <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> now pending in <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> and in post-conviction review proceedings in the sentencing <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> entered an order accepting transfer of <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6190" data-sentence-id="6658" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that the <span class="ldml-entity">post-conviction motion</span> was properly denied.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label=" II.
" data-ordinal_end="2" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_6723" data-value="II." data-ordinal_start="2" data-specifier="II" data-parsed="true" id="heading_6723"><span data-paragraph-id="6723" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6723" data-sentence-id="6731" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">II.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="6735" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="6743" class="ldml-sentence">Beginning on <span class="ldml-entity">July 1, 1993</span>, all class two through six felony convictions in Colorado involving a sentence to a term of imprisonment have been subject to an additional period of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mandatory parole."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="6939" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6743"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="6967" class="ldml-sentence">An offender is subject to mandatory parole following discharge from imprisonment regardless of whether such discharge is through some form of early release under the auspices of <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> board of parole, or as the result of the offender having served the entire period of confinement specified in his or her sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="7286" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6967"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(B)</span></span></a></span></span>.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="7314" class="ldml-sentence">The exact length of the additional parole term is specified by reference to the class of felony for which <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was convicted.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="7449" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7314"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="7477" class="ldml-sentence">This period is mandatory, in that it may not be waived by the offender or waived or suspended by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="7591" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7477"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(B)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="7619" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">The state</span> board of parole may discharge the offender at any time during the parole period upon a determination that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and can no longer benefit from parole supervision."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6735" data-sentence-id="7876" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7619"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 17-22.5-403<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(8)</span></span>, 6 C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7619"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(B)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="7944" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7944" data-sentence-id="7952" class="ldml-sentence">Offenders who enter into plea dispositions but later challenge the mandatory parole requirement often seek relief through post-conviction proceedings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7944" data-sentence-id="8103" class="ldml-sentence">A great deal of confusion has arisen with regard to the proper approach to resolving <span class="ldml-entity">these cases</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7944" data-sentence-id="8201" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin our analysis by first considering, and then rejecting, the view that a plea agreement contemplating an illegal sentence involving mandatory parole may be specifically enforced notwithstanding the illegality of the agreement as originally conceived.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7944" data-sentence-id="8459" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then turn to what, in our view, is the proper analytical framework for resolving this type of case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7944" data-sentence-id="8562" class="ldml-sentence">Simply put, <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> must determine whether the waiver of constitutional <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_8637" data-val="959" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> rights associated with <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s entrance of a negotiated plea was rendered unknowing, involuntary or unintelligent by either <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the improper inducement of a plea agreement to alter or to eliminate the term of mandatory parole; or <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> an insufficient advisement on mandatory parole in light of its status as a direct consequence of the guilty plea.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7944" data-sentence-id="8994" class="ldml-sentence">Finding neither flaw in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that the post-conviction <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> properly denied relief.</span>
</p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label=" A.
" data-ordinal_end="1" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-id="heading_9092" data-value="A." data-ordinal_start="1" data-specifier="A" data-parsed="true" id="heading_9092"><span data-paragraph-id="9092" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9092" data-sentence-id="9100" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">A.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9103" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9103" data-sentence-id="9111" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The courts</span> have long recognized that, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecutor</span>, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9103" data-sentence-id="9344" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885235816" data-vids="885235816" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9111"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Santobello v. New York</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">404 U.S. 257, 262</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">92 S.Ct. 495</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">30 L.Ed.2d 427</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1971</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9103" data-sentence-id="9424" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have recently reaffirmed this principle.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9103" data-sentence-id="9468" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888112612" data-vids="888112612" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9424"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">St. James v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">948 P.2d 1028, 1032</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1997</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9103" data-sentence-id="9526" class="ldml-sentence">If a breach is established, the appropriate remedy will generally be to give effect to <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s legitimate expectations arising out of the express promises made by the government.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9103" data-sentence-id="9713" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888112612" data-vids="888112612" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9526"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">St. James</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">948 P.2d at 1033</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894826334" data-vids="894826334" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9526"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Macrander</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">756 P.2d 356, 361</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1988</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886872080" data-vids="886872080" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9526"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Fisher</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">657 P.2d 922, 931</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="9847" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9847" data-sentence-id="9855" class="ldml-sentence">However, because mandatory parole is a statutorily prescribed sentence component that attaches automatically to any sentence involving imprisonment, a plea agreement purporting to alter this requirement represents a special case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9847" data-sentence-id="10085" class="ldml-sentence">It is important to recognize that the provisions governing plea dispositions provide <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecutor</span> with limited authority to: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"make or not to oppose favorable recommendations concerning the sentence to be imposed if <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9847" data-sentence-id="10361" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10085"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 11<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(I)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10085"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 16-7-301<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span>, 6 C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9847" data-sentence-id="10427" class="ldml-sentence">In this context, then, the concessions specified in any particular plea agreement must be understood as speaking only to the discretionary aspects of sentencing where such recommendations actually could be entertained by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9847" data-sentence-id="10665" class="ldml-sentence">Because neither <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecutor</span> nor <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole period provided by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10665"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span>, this topic is not a permissible subject of plea negotiations.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9847" data-sentence-id="10882" class="ldml-sentence">Nor is it a matter on which <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecutor</span> can be expected to express an opinion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9847" data-sentence-id="10964" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, when mandatory parole is required by <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span>, a recommendation from <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecutor</span> on this topic is either a meaningless recommendation that the law be followed or an extraordinary recommendation that the law be ignored.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="11197" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11197" data-sentence-id="11205" class="ldml-sentence">When <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> attempt to fashion a sentence that is itself contrary to law, the resulting illegality is not subject to specific enforcement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11197" data-sentence-id="11349" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, assuming that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> erroneously approves of such an illegal bargain, our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11349"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chae v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">780 P.2d 481, 485-86</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span></span>, requires the plea to be regarded as invalid and involuntary.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11197" data-sentence-id="11563" class="ldml-sentence">In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11563"><span class="ldml-refname">Chae</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> and defense entered into a plea agreement that called for <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> to illegally suspend <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s prison sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11197" data-sentence-id="11716" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11563"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11197" data-sentence-id="11724" class="ldml-sentence">Because the illegal sentence was an integral part of the plea agreement entered in <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> concluded that the plea itself could not be upheld.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11197" data-sentence-id="11873" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> noted there:</span>
</p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_11892" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="11892" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>hen <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> enters into a plea agreement that includes as a <i class="ldml-italics">material element</i> a recommendation for an illegal sentence and the illegal sentence is in fact imposed on <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, the guilty plea is invalid and must be vacated because the basis on which <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> entered the plea included the impermissible inducement of an illegal sentence.</span>
</blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="12246" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="12254" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 486</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="12283" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> ultimately held that <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> cannot uphold a plea bargain that calls for an illegal sentence, and thus, the only appropriate remedy would be to allow <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> to withdraw his plea and plead anew.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="12490" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12283"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 487</span></a></span></span>.<a href="#note-fr4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr4">4</a></span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_12514" data-val="960" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="12515" class="ldml-sentence">In the context of mandatory parole, any plea agreement purporting to eliminate, waive, modify or direct <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s application of parole in a way not available under the sentencing law would call for an illegal sentence of the sort rejected in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12515"><span class="ldml-refname">Chae</span></a></span>.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="12772" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore find fault with Craig's reliance on <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12772"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Sandoval</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">809 P.2d 1058</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1990</span>)</span></a></span>, for <span class="ldml-entity">the proposition</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> may obtain specific enforcement approximating the terms of the illegal bargain.<a href="#note-fr5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr5">5</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="12990" class="ldml-sentence">It is true that <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12990"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> court</span> found the application of mandatory parole to be inconsistent with the terms of <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s plea agreement, and ordered a remedy in the nature of specific enforcement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="13194" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity">panel</span> that decided <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13194"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> does not appear to have considered the import of our prior <span class="ldml-entity">holding in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13194"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Chae</i></span></a></span></span>, and in particular our observation that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a later sentence imposed within statutory guidelines cannot correct"</span> the flaw resulting from the improper inducement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="13486" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13194"><span class="ldml-cite">780 P.2d at 487 n. 12</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="13509" class="ldml-sentence">Significantly, <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13509"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> court</span> seems to have arrived at its conclusion by mixing the analysis of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the sufficiency of the advisement associated with a plea agreement, a separate topic <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> consider below; with <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> the validity and enforceability of the promises contained in the plea agreement itself.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="13814" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13509"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Sandoval</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">809 P.2d at 1058-59</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="13849" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13849"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> was wrongly decided and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> overrule it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="13915" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also disapprove of <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> which follow <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13915"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> and rely upon its mixed analysis.<a href="#note-fr6" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr6">6</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="13999" class="ldml-sentence">There cannot be a breach of a plea agreement when the agreement itself cannot be recognized because it contains, as an integral component, an illegal promise that materially induced <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> to plead guilty.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12246" data-sentence-id="14212" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13999"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chae</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">780 P.2d at 486</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label=" B.
" data-ordinal_end="2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-id="heading_14239" data-value="B." data-ordinal_start="2" data-specifier="B" data-parsed="true" id="heading_14239"><span data-paragraph-id="14239" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14239" data-sentence-id="14247" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">B.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="14250" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14258" class="ldml-sentence">In light of our conclusion above, it should be clear that <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> will not reach the question of whether the imposition of mandatory parole pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14258"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span> runs counter to a promise contained in <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s plea agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14511" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, when a promise in a plea agreement purports to touch upon mandatory parole, the reviewing <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> must determine whether the agreement calls for an illegal sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14685" class="ldml-sentence">If so, and if the improper promise was an integral and material aspect of the agreement, the resulting plea is invalid under <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14685"><span class="ldml-refname">Chae</span></a></span>.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14816" class="ldml-sentence">In order to determine whether there was an improper inducement of this sort in <span class="ldml-entity">the instant case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to our <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> guiding the interpretation of the existence and scope of promises alleged to be part of a plea agreement.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="15043" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15051" class="ldml-sentence">The proper interpretation of a plea agreement is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"strictly a question of law."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15130" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888112612" data-vids="888112612" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15051"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">St. James</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">948 P.2d at 1030</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15163" class="ldml-sentence">As such, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"de novo review is the proper standard for interpreting <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span>'s obligation under a plea agreement."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15274" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888112612" data-vids="888112612" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15163"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1031</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15287" class="ldml-sentence">The question for <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> is whether the interpretation <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> claims to have taken is a reasonable one.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15401" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894826334" data-vids="894826334" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15287"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Macrander</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">756 P.2d at 360</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15433" class="ldml-sentence">This is an objective test.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15460" class="ldml-sentence">It is not based on the subjective understanding of <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_15515" data-val="961" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> defendant</span>, but on the meaning a reasonable person would have attached under the circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15611" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894826334" data-vids="894826334" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_15620,sentence_15460"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>e focus on the meaning a reasonable person might attach to the language of the agreement."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15717" class="ldml-sentence">Our task is not to rewrite the bargain in question, but to interpret it consistently with the reasonable intent of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> in light of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s right to be treated fairly by the government.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15043" data-sentence-id="15918" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889495026" data-vids="889495026" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15717"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Wilbur</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">890 P.2d 113, 117</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="15971" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15971" data-sentence-id="15979" class="ldml-sentence">However, a plea agreement is more than a mere contract between two <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"must be attended by constitutional safeguards to ensure that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> receives the performance that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is due."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15971" data-sentence-id="16174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888791244" data-vids="888791244" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15979"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. McCormick</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">859 P.2d 846, 856</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15971" data-sentence-id="16227" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s due process rights are at issue, <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> may consider extrinsic evidence as an aid to ascertaining the existence and scope of any promises at issue, even under circumstances where such evidence would not be properly considered in the realm of ordinary civil contracts.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15971" data-sentence-id="16523" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895608265" data-vids="895608265" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16227"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Romero</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">745 P.2d 1003, 1010</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15971" data-sentence-id="16579" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, in addition to the relevant written documents, <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> may consider <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any oral statements made to <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> as well as extrinsic evidence relating to the circumstances of the government's dealings with <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15971" data-sentence-id="16811" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895608265" data-vids="895608265" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16579"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="16815" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="16823" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> advisement associated with acceptance of a plea represents a special type of extrinsic evidence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="16936" class="ldml-sentence">Although extrinsic matters may be considered even in the absence of ambiguity, consideration of such evidence takes on special significance only where the plea agreement is itself ambiguous.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="17127" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895608265" data-vids="895608265" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16936"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Romero</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">745 P.2d at 1010</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="17157" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have held that where <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' bargain is unambiguous in its meaning, however, an inaccurate advisement by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> does not have the effect of altering the bargain of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="17351" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889495026" data-vids="889495026" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17157"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilbur</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">890 P.2d at 118-19</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="17383" class="ldml-sentence">For this reason, an advisement might affect the validity of a plea by failing to provide sufficient information <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a matter <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> consider below)</span>, but it will not ordinarily alter the <i class="ldml-italics">promises</i> contained in an unambiguous plea agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="17615" class="ldml-sentence">Only when <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s statements add a term inconsistent with the plea agreement, to which <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> acquiesce, is the unambiguous agreement altered.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16815" data-sentence-id="17767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885969502" data-vids="885969502" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_17861,sentence_17615"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Benavidez v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">986 P.2d 943, at 949</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">1999 WL 782057</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">October 4, 1999</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">trial court</span> added a new term to the plea agreement when it asserted that the agreed upon five-year cap would apply to both Community Corrections and D.O.C. sentences</span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="18041" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18041" data-sentence-id="18049" class="ldml-sentence">With all of the above principles in mind, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> categorically reject the suggestion that the mere omission of a reference to mandatory parole in the plea agreement requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to construe <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' bargain as eliminating or modifying the application of this statutory requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18041" data-sentence-id="18330" class="ldml-sentence">Such an interpretation is unreasonable when considered in terms of the context under which plea negotiations take place.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18041" data-sentence-id="18451" class="ldml-sentence">The fact that mandatory parole is not a permissible topic for plea negotiations, coupled with <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' silence on this topic, causes <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to reject this approach.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18041" data-sentence-id="18616" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> will not presume that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> intended to defeat a parole term mandated by <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> simply because the plea agreement does not mention parole.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18041" data-sentence-id="18765" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> may not reasonably rely on the mere omission of mandatory parole to demonstrate a promise for an illegal sentence excluding the required period.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18041" data-sentence-id="18933" class="ldml-sentence">In the absence of express language by <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> indicating that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have actually agreed to eliminate or circumvent the parole requirement, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will construe the plea agreement to provide for a legal sentence.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="19145" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19145" data-sentence-id="19153" class="ldml-sentence">Arguing in the alternative, Craig claims that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should construe the sentence of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"5 years D.O.C."</span> specified in the plea documents as actually denoting only two years of imprisonment plus three years of mandatory parole.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19145" data-sentence-id="19373" class="ldml-sentence">In this respect, Craig urges that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> envisioned the term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"D.O.C."</span> as denoting an agreement to limit his overall exposure to any form of deprivation of liberty to a period of five years.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="19568" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19568" data-sentence-id="19576" class="ldml-sentence">The felony sentencing scheme erected by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19576"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105</span></a></span> simply does not envision an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"overall exposure"</span> sentence; rather, the structure of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> makes clear that terms of imprisonment and mandatory parole terms are distinct elements of the sentencing regime.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19568" data-sentence-id="19841" class="ldml-sentence">It therefore stands to reason that a <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_19878" data-val="962" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> sentence of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"overall exposure"</span> is not authorized under <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19568" data-sentence-id="19947" class="ldml-sentence">That notwithstanding, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not agree with Craig's suggestion that a sentence to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"5 years D.O.C."</span> embodies such a promise.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19568" data-sentence-id="20070" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are of the view that a reasonable person would understand a sentence to the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span>"</span> to refer to the imprisonment component of a sentence only and not to include any promises concerning mandatory parole.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="20304" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20304" data-sentence-id="20312" class="ldml-sentence">Although basic considerations of fairness require that reasonable ambiguity regarding the scope of a promise made in a plea agreement be resolved in favor of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895608265" data-vids="895608265" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20312"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Romero</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">745 P.2d at 1010</span></a></span></span>, this does not mean that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are free to read into the agreement a term that lacks evidentiary support in the record.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20304" data-sentence-id="20631" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895608265" data-vids="895608265" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20312"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="20304" data-sentence-id="20639" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will entertain the view suggested by <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> when it represents a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<i class="ldml-italics">reasonable</i> alternative interpretation"</span> of the agreement that has a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<i class="ldml-italics">reasonable</i> foundation in the document itself and in the circumstances surrounding its execution."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="20304" data-sentence-id="20887" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895608265" data-vids="895608265" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20639"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="20909" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20909" data-sentence-id="20917" class="ldml-sentence">Consistent with our conclusions above, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not construe <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' failure to mention mandatory parole in the written plea agreement as subjecting that document to the alternative interpretation urged by Craig.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20909" data-sentence-id="21132" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Silence does not by itself necessarily create ambiguity"</span> unless that silence involves a matter <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"naturally within the scope"</span> of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' bargain.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20909" data-sentence-id="21282" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21132" data-refglobal="case:cheyennemountainschooldistrict12vthompsonno92sc573861p2d711,86edlawrep1047nov1,1993"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Cheyenne Mountain Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Thompson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">861 P.2d 711, 715</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20909" data-sentence-id="21362" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> would not ordinarily negotiate and include mandatory parole in their agreement, their silence on this topic simply does not render the agreement ambiguous.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="21538" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="21546" class="ldml-sentence">More fundamentally, however, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> believe that an agreement for a sentence to the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"D.O.C."</span> clearly indicates that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> has bargained for a term of <i class="ldml-italics">confinement</i> commensurate with the period specified.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="21752" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span> is charged with the management and control of the correctional facilities in this state.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="21871" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21752"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 17-1-104, 6 C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21752"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-1-128.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, 7 C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="21950" class="ldml-sentence">All decisions regarding mandatory parole are, however, left exclusively to the <span class="ldml-entity">Board of Parole</span>, an entity separate and apart from the <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="22111" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21950"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 17-2-201, 6 C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="22144" class="ldml-sentence">Only the Board is empowered by <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> to release an offender to mandatory parole before completion of her sentence of imprisonment, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22144"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(D)</span></span></a></span></span>, and only the Board is authorized <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to discharge <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[an]</span> offender at any time during the term of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[mandatory]</span> parole."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="22418" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22144"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(B)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="22442" class="ldml-sentence">Because the General Assembly elected not to vest the <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span> with the discretionary authority to either initiate or terminate a mandatory period of parole, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> cannot characterize an agreement for a sentence concession of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"5 years D.O.C."</span> as encompassing some unstated mixture of prison time and mandatory parole time.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21538" data-sentence-id="22778" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, our duty to engage in reasonable interpretation requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to view such language as speaking only to the length of time <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> intend <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> to be confined in a <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span> facility.<a href="#note-fr7" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr7">7</a></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="23005" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23005" data-sentence-id="23013" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reject the position of the amicus <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s advisement altered <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' unambiguous agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23005" data-sentence-id="23153" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> can find no express promise made by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> and adopted by <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> through their silence or express acquiescence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23005" data-sentence-id="23282" class="ldml-sentence">It is urged, however, that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s statement to the effect that it would not be bound by any representations not formalized in the plea documents requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> promised Craig that any sentence component not specifically listed would be thereby precluded.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23005" data-sentence-id="23572" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reject this view.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23005" data-sentence-id="23593" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_23614" data-val="963" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> court</span> spoke in terms of <i class="ldml-italics">representations</i> and was indicating that any sentence concessions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., promises)</span> not listed were unenforceable.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23005" data-sentence-id="23752" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the advisement actually supports our view that, absent an express promise regarding mandatory parole, the agreement is not a promise to eliminate or to reduce the mandatory period of parole.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="23949" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23949" data-sentence-id="23957" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> find the interpretations of the plea agreement proposed by Craig to be unreasonable as a matter of law, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was made no promises by the government that would impact the application of mandatory parole as required by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23957"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23949" data-sentence-id="24230" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, there was not an improper inducement to plead guilty and the plea agreement was not invalid on that basis.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label=" C.
" data-ordinal_end="3" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-id="heading_24350" data-value="C." data-ordinal_start="3" data-specifier="C" data-parsed="true" id="heading_24350"><span data-paragraph-id="24350" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="24350" data-sentence-id="24358" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">C.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="24361" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="24361" data-sentence-id="24369" class="ldml-sentence">Despite the fact that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the plea agreement does not contain an impermissible inducement related to mandatory parole, there remains a question as to whether Craig was sufficiently advised of the parole requirement to enter a plea with the requisite knowledge of the consequences.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24361" data-sentence-id="24663" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="24688" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="24688" data-sentence-id="24696" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24696"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 11</span></a></span> requires that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> be advised of, among other things, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possible penalty or penalties"</span> associated with the entry of a guilty plea.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24688" data-sentence-id="24849" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24696"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 11<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24688" data-sentence-id="24872" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have construed this requirement as charging <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> with a duty to describe the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"direct consequences"</span> of the resulting conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24688" data-sentence-id="25009" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895271560" data-vids="895271560" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24872"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Birdsong</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">958 P.2d 1124, 1128</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888821541" data-vids="888821541" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24872"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Pozo</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">746 P.2d 523, 526</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24688" data-sentence-id="25113" class="ldml-sentence">Where a guilty plea is the result of a plea agreement that includes a proposed sentence stipulation, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> must describe not only the penalties that could attach if <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> were to go to trial, but also the specific points where the stipulated sentence would differ from this general advisement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24688" data-sentence-id="25420" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888872602" data-vids="888872602" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25113"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Weed</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">830 P.2d 1095, 1097-98</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1991</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="25488" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25488" data-sentence-id="25496" class="ldml-sentence">Mandatory parole is a direct consequence of pleading guilty to a charge which subjects <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> to immediate imprisonment<a href="#note-fr8" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr8">8</a> because it has an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of possible punishment."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25488" data-sentence-id="25717" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895271560" data-vids="895271560" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25496"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Birdsong</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">958 P.2d at 1128</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890275839" data-vids="890275839" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25496"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Coleman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">844 P.2d 1215, 1219</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span><span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="25810" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25810" data-sentence-id="25818" class="ldml-sentence">A proper advisement is important because the mandatory parole required by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25818"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span> is different from previous types of parole.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25810" data-sentence-id="25965" class="ldml-sentence">Unlike traditional discretionary parole, which allows an offender to serve some portion of his or her prison sentence under parole supervision in lieu of imprisonment, mandatory parole is imposed in addition to the imprisonment component of a sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25810" data-sentence-id="26218" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, a violation of the terms of parole can convert the parole term into an additional period of imprisonment of up to the remaining length of the parole period.<a href="#note-fr9" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr9">9</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25810" data-sentence-id="26385" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26218"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 17-22.5-403<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(8)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25810" data-sentence-id="26407" class="ldml-sentence">Given these characteristics, a proper advisement on this topic must indicate that the parole term occurs after, in addition to, or distinct from any period of imprisonment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25810" data-sentence-id="26580" class="ldml-sentence">A proper advisement must also include the length of mandatory parole, although the failure to so advise may be harmless error.<a href="#note-fr10" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr10">10</a></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="26707" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="26707" data-sentence-id="26715" class="ldml-sentence">However, a proper advisement need not comport with any prescribed ritual or script.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26707" data-sentence-id="26799" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889487674" data-vids="889487674" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26715"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Cushon</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">650 P.2d 527, 528</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889211332" data-vids="889211332" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_26918,sentence_26715"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Canino</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">181 Colo. 207, 211</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">508 P.2d 1273, 1275</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1973</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Our concern ... has always been with reality <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_26964" data-val="964" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> and not ritual."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26707" data-sentence-id="26984" class="ldml-sentence">The appropriate inquiry is whether the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"record as a whole"</span> shows that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was given sufficient notice of the matter in question.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26707" data-sentence-id="27123" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892642162" data-vids="892642162" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26984"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. District Court</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">868 P.2d 400, 403</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1994</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26707" data-sentence-id="27180" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the analysis of the advisement question may involve consideration of the language of the plea agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26707" data-sentence-id="27291" class="ldml-sentence">If there is some showing of an affirmative waiver, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the burden of proof rests with <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> to show by a preponderance of evidence that his apparent waiver was not effective."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26707" data-sentence-id="27472" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888346006" data-vids="888346006" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27291"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Harrington</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 Colo. 312, 315-16</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">500 P.2d 360, 361</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1972</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891027138" data-vids="891027138" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27291"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Sandoval v. Tinsley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">338 F.2d 48, 50</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1964</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="27601" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="27601" data-sentence-id="27609" class="ldml-sentence">Although an improper <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27609"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 11</span></a></span> advisement calls into question the knowing, voluntary and intelligent nature of <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s plea, the remedy for an oversight by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> depends, in part, on the type of information that was not properly conveyed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27601" data-sentence-id="27866" class="ldml-sentence">Where <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> is not advised of fundamental constitutional rights that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> would enjoy at a trial, the plea cannot be treated as knowing, voluntary and intelligent and must be allowed to be withdrawn.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27601" data-sentence-id="28077" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888346006" data-vids="888346006" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27866"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Harrington</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 Colo. at 316</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">500 P.2d at 361-62</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27601" data-sentence-id="28131" class="ldml-sentence">Similarly, where <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> does not adequately explain the elements of the crime <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(including the requisite mental state)</span> that would have to be proven at trial, the resulting conviction is not constitutionally supportable.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27601" data-sentence-id="28358" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892022651" data-vids="892022651" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28131"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lacy v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">775 P.2d 1, 4-5</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="28407" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="28407" data-sentence-id="28415" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have held that the failure to advise of the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"correct and complete penalty"</span> may be rendered harmless by imposing a modified sentence that removes the burden of the undisclosed consequence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28407" data-sentence-id="28615" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891379350" data-vids="891379350" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28415"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Baca</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 Colo. 156, 158</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">499 P.2d 317, 318</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1972</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28407" data-sentence-id="28681" class="ldml-sentence">In the mandatory parole context, then, withdrawal is not required if <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> can be given an alternative sentence in which the number of years of imprisonment is reduced by such an extent as to remove the extra onus of the undisclosed or improperly described parole term.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28407" data-sentence-id="28959" class="ldml-sentence">Such a modification cannot be imposed, however, if the result would be an illegal sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28407" data-sentence-id="29051" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, withdrawal of the plea is the only remedy where elimination of the burden of the undisclosed consequence would require elimination of all or part of the required mandatory parole period, or would reduce the number of years of imprisonment below the presumptive range specified in <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span>.<a href="#note-fr11" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr11">11</a></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="29350" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="29350" data-sentence-id="29358" class="ldml-sentence">While modification may be necessary to repair the defects that necessarily attend an inadequate advisement, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hasten to add that there will likely be occasions where an error at advisement may be deemed harmless <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">ab</span> initio.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29350" data-sentence-id="29582" class="ldml-sentence">For instance, in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> where <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> is alerted as to the full range of penalties to which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> could legitimately be exposed, but is not apprised of the consequence of mandatory parole, harmless error results when the term of imprisonment, combined with the mandatory period of parole, falls within the range of sentence that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was at risk of receiving.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29350" data-sentence-id="29953" class="ldml-sentence">While the failure to advise <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> of both the fact and length of mandatory parole constitutes error on the part of <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>, having been notified of the maximum available penalties, is not entitled to reformation of a combined sentence of imprisonment and mandatory parole that falls within the range of penalties <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was at risk of receiving.<a href="#note-fr12" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr12">12</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29350" data-sentence-id="30322" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, in the circumstances described above, a reviewing <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> need not decide whether <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s sentence must be reformed in order to render harmless the erroneous advisement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29350" data-sentence-id="30502" class="ldml-sentence">In such <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, the error already will have been rendered harmless by virtue of the fact that the combined sentence of imprisonment and mandatory parole imposed by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> neither exceeds nor substantially departs <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_30723" data-val="965" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> from the range of penalties set forth in its earlier advisement and which <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was at risk of receiving.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29350" data-sentence-id="30838" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">Cf.</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891379350" data-vids="891379350" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30882,sentence_30502"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Baca</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 Colo. at 158</span>,<span class="ldml-cite">499 P.2d at 318</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">deeming harmless <span class="ldml-entity">trial court</span>'s failure to advise as to the correct and complete penalty because sentence finally imposed was in conformity with original, albeit defective, advisement</span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="31067" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="31075" class="ldml-sentence">Viewing the record as a whole, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are satisfied that Craig received an extensive and meticulous advisement that adequately covered the mandatory parole requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="31240" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, Craig personally acknowledged, by initialing paragraph fourteen of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31240"><span class="ldml-cite">rule 11</span></a></span> advisement form, that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> could be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"required to serve up to five years of parole after serving a sentence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="31434" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> was advised by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> that class four felonies are subject to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"three years of mandatory parole."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="31543" class="ldml-sentence">Directly following this advisement <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was asked whether <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> understood the penalties, and indicated that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> did.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="31655" class="ldml-sentence">Defense <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> certified that Craig had been advised of the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possible penalties"</span> and was offering the pleas <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"freely, knowingly, and voluntarily."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="31802" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887793730" data-vids="887793730" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_31856,sentence_31655"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Cabral</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">698 P.2d 234, 238</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">in-<span class="ldml-entity">court</span> attestation by defense <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> regarding voluntary nature of plea considered significant</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="31956" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, Craig confirmed that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had conferred with <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> while reviewing the plea documents and considered the services of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> to be satisfactory.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="32114" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886508607" data-vids="886508607" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32174,sentence_31956"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Orona</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">907 P.2d 659, 666-667</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span><span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"It is significant that <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> was represented by <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> prior to and during the proceeding and that <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> acknowledged that his attorney discussed the charge and the effect of a guilty plea with him."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31067" data-sentence-id="32386" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> — having had the opportunity to measure the demeanor, body language, and level of comprehension exhibited by Craig at the providency hearing — made a finding that Craig understood the penalties associated with his case and was entering the pleas voluntarily with knowledge of the consequences.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="32705" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="32705" data-sentence-id="32713" class="ldml-sentence">Despite the extensive indicia of a proper advisement, Craig contends that his plea was nevertheless defective.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32705" data-sentence-id="32824" class="ldml-sentence">Because Craig did not raise the specific theories upon which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> now relies in his <span class="ldml-entity">post-conviction motion</span>,<a href="#note-fr13" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr13">13</a> <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are not properly before <span class="ldml-entity">the appellate courts</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32705" data-sentence-id="32981" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889985927" data-vids="889985927" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32824"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Simms</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">185 Colo. 214, 218</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">523 P.2d 463, 465</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1974</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892888569" data-vids="892888569" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32824"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Goldman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">923 P.2d 374, 375</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span><span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32705" data-sentence-id="33111" class="ldml-sentence">Nevertheless, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> elect to address these points in order to provide some guidance in this realm.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="33207" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="33207" data-sentence-id="33215" class="ldml-sentence">Craig first claims that the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33215"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 11</span></a></span> advisement form did not provide sufficient notice of the mandatory parole requirement because it informed him only that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"could"</span> be subject to parole.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33207" data-sentence-id="33408" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are not persuaded.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33207" data-sentence-id="33430" class="ldml-sentence">This form indicated that Craig <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"could be required to serve up to five years on parole after serving a sentence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="33207" data-sentence-id="33543" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> believe that the essential character of the mandatory parole period required by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33543"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span> was clearly described.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33207" data-sentence-id="33678" class="ldml-sentence">Not only was Craig put on notice that a parole term was a potential component of his sentence, but this language also explained that the parole period: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> begins after any term of imprisonment; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> could be of up to five years in duration.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33207" data-sentence-id="33923" class="ldml-sentence">Viewed in context, use of the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"could"</span> did not render this advisement defective.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33207" data-sentence-id="34008" class="ldml-sentence">In fact, because the board of parole may release an offender from parole supervision at any time upon a finding that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> has been sufficiently rehabilitated, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34008"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 17-22.5-403<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(8)</span></span></a></span></span> & <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34008"><span class="ldml-cite">18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(B)</span></span></a></span>, the phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"could be required to serve"</span> was actually quite appropriate.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="34290" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="34290" data-sentence-id="34298" class="ldml-sentence">Craig next argues that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s advice that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"there's three years of mandatory parole on a Class Four Felony,"</span> should be understood as speaking only in terms of the general possibilities for the crimes in question, because this phrase was not repeated when <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> discussed the sentence concessions agreed to by <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34290" data-sentence-id="34634" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reject this characterization.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34290" data-sentence-id="34667" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> conducted an appropriate advisement by outlining all of the possible consequences of the guilty plea <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(including mandatory <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_34805" data-val="966" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> parole)</span>, and separately highlighting the single area — the term of imprisonment to the D.O.C. — where <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had stipulated to a result that differed from the general advisement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34290" data-sentence-id="34990" class="ldml-sentence">Because mandatory parole applies equally to stipulated sentences to the D.O.C. as well as those that are not stipulated, it is not necessary for <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> to be repetitive on this point.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="35181" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="35181" data-sentence-id="35189" class="ldml-sentence">In short, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not persuaded by Craig's attempts to characterize the record as containing an insufficient advisement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35181" data-sentence-id="35309" class="ldml-sentence">When asked if <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> understood the penalties at the providency hearing, Craig indicated that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> did.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35181" data-sentence-id="35407" class="ldml-sentence">At no time did <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> request clarification from <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> or suggest that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> believed the mandatory parole period would be inapplicable to his case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35181" data-sentence-id="35559" class="ldml-sentence">His <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35559"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> motion</span> did not request a hearing and offered no evidence to establish why his responses at the providency hearing did not accurately reflect an intelligent waiver of his rights.<a href="#note-fr14" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr14">14</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35181" data-sentence-id="35756" class="ldml-sentence">Under such circumstances, Craig did not meet his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the affirmative waiver contained in the record was ineffective.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35181" data-sentence-id="35932" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888346006" data-vids="888346006" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35756"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Harrington</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 Colo. at 315-16</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">500 P.2d at 361</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35181" data-sentence-id="35986" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, Craig is not entitled to relief on this claim.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label=" D.
" data-ordinal_end="4" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-id="heading_36046" data-value="D." data-ordinal_start="4" data-specifier="D" data-parsed="true" id="heading_36046"><span data-paragraph-id="36046" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="36046" data-sentence-id="36054" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">D.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="36057" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="36057" data-sentence-id="36065" class="ldml-sentence">In light of our conclusions above, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> next turn our attention to the fact that the mittimus in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> does not reflect the required mandatory parole period.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36057" data-sentence-id="36225" class="ldml-sentence">Because the parole term required by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36225"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span> may not be waived, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s failure to specify this sentence component in the mittimus was error, though likely due to a mere oversight.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36057" data-sentence-id="36436" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that the error can and must be corrected by the sentencing <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36057" data-sentence-id="36514" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890999290" data-vids="890999290" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_36574,sentence_36436"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Garcia v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">492 F.2d 395, 398</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">once <span class="ldml-entity">trial court</span> made aware that it had inadvertently omitted a required <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"special parole"</span> term, it had a duty to comply with <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> and correct the sentence; such correction did not violate constitutional protections</span>)</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">cert. denied</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36436" data-refglobal="case:419us897,95sct178,42led2d1421974"><span class="ldml-cite">419 U.S. 897</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">95 S.Ct. 178</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">42 L.Ed.2d 142</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1974</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36057" data-sentence-id="36863" class="ldml-sentence">Further, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> observe that a mittimus that is silent as to whether the mandatory period of parole is imposed should be read to include the imposition of this requirement since it must be added whenever the error is noticed.<a href="#note-fr15" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr15">15</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="36057" data-sentence-id="37085" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> shall amend Craig's mittimus to reflect the mandatory parole period.</span>
</p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label=" III.
" data-ordinal_end="3" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_37183" data-value="III." data-ordinal_start="3" data-specifier="III" data-parsed="true" id="heading_37183"><span data-paragraph-id="37183" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="37183" data-sentence-id="37191" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">III.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="37196" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="37196" data-sentence-id="37204" class="ldml-sentence">In sum, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that a plea agreement to reduce or modify the statutorily mandated period of parole calls for an illegal sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37196" data-sentence-id="37335" class="ldml-sentence">It is not possible for the imposition of mandatory parole to result in a breach of a plea agreement, because such an agreement must be viewed as an improper inducement for the plea of guilty.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37196" data-sentence-id="37527" class="ldml-sentence">If a plea was actually induced by such a promise, <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> must be given the opportunity to withdraw the plea.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37196" data-sentence-id="37643" class="ldml-sentence">However, an agreement that is silent as to parole should not be construed as containing a promise to eliminate or reduce the mandatory period of parole.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="37796" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="37796" data-sentence-id="37804" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> further hold that mandatory parole is a direct consequence of a plea that results in a sentence to imprisonment, and that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> must be advised of the mandatory parole and the length of that parole.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37796" data-sentence-id="38012" class="ldml-sentence">The failure to properly advise of the term of mandatory parole is harmless if the length of parole and imprisonment together does not exceed the total term of imprisonment of which <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was advised and risked receiving.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37796" data-sentence-id="38241" class="ldml-sentence">A sentence may be modified, within the statutorily permitted range, to render such error harmless.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="38340" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="38340" data-sentence-id="38348" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that a mittimus that does not specify the mandatory parole period should be read as including the appropriate mandatory parole period and must be corrected.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label=" IV.
" data-ordinal_end="4" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_38522" data-value="IV." data-ordinal_start="4" data-specifier="IV" data-parsed="true" id="heading_38522"><span data-paragraph-id="38522" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="38522" data-sentence-id="38530" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">IV.</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="38534" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="38534" data-sentence-id="38542" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> find that Craig was not offered a sentence with an altered mandatory parole <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_38627" data-val="967" data-rep="P.2d" data-vol="986"></span> term, and therefore his plea was not invalid on that basis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38534" data-sentence-id="38688" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that Craig was sufficiently appraised of the mandatory parole requirement to enter a plea with the requisite knowledge of this consequence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38534" data-sentence-id="38840" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, the mittimus in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, which does not specify the mandatory parole period, should be read as including the appropriate mandatory parole period and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> direct <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> to correct the mittimus by including the period of mandatory parole.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38534" data-sentence-id="39095" class="ldml-sentence">The judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> denying relief is affirmed.</span>
</p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="39182" class="ldml-paragraph "><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="39182" data-sentence-id="39183" class="ldml-sentence">The companion case is <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885969502" data-vids="885969502" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39183"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Benavidez v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 98SA160</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">986 P.2d 943</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">1999 WL 782057</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">October 4, 1999</span>)</span></a></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="39293" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="39293" data-sentence-id="39302" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"present sentence"</span> described in the written plea agreement referred to concurrent terms of imprisonment <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was already serving due to unrelated convictions in <span class="ldml-entity">Jefferson County</span> and Adams County.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="39511" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="39511" data-sentence-id="39520" class="ldml-sentence">This is a departure from the historical understanding of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"parole"</span> as a privilege allowing an inmate to <i class="ldml-italics">exchange</i> a certain portion of his or her prison term for a period of non-imprisonment custody.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39511" data-sentence-id="39718" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886887447" data-vids="886887447" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39773,sentence_39520"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Hunter</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">738 P.2d 20, 22</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span><span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">interpreting</span> traditional parole rubric as granting an inmate the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"special privilege to be outside the walls of the institution while serving his sentence"</span></span>)</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">aff'd on other grounds</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895778482" data-vids="895778482" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39520"><span class="ldml-cite">757 P.2d 631</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1988</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39511" data-sentence-id="39980" class="ldml-sentence">Now, even a prisoner who serves every single day of his or her prison sentence must remain subject to the conditions of parole for the additional mandatory period.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="40144" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr4">4.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="40144" data-sentence-id="40153" class="ldml-sentence">The rule from <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40153"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Chae</i></span></a></span> applies where the illegal promise in question was itself a material inducement for <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> to plead guilty.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40144" data-sentence-id="40286" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_40307,sentence_40153"><span class="ldml-cite">780 P.2d at 486</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">illegal term was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"material element"</span> of bargain</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40144" data-sentence-id="40356" class="ldml-sentence">This will almost always be <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> where, as with mandatory parole or the illegal suspension of a prison sentence considered in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40356"><span class="ldml-refname">Chae</span></a></span>,</i> the illegal bargain relates directly to the personal, physical liberty of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40144" data-sentence-id="40580" class="ldml-sentence">Where the circumstances differ — i.e., where the illegality does not so significantly implicate <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s freedom — it may not be necessary to vacate the plea and allow <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> to plead anew.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40144" data-sentence-id="40782" class="ldml-sentence">Similarly, there may be a situation outside of the mandatory parole context where the government would be estopped from raising the illegality of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' bargain.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40144" data-sentence-id="40950" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886872080" data-vids="886872080" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40782"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Fisher</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">657 P.2d at 926</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">discussing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894437487" data-vids="894437487" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40782"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Palermo v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">545 F.2d 286, 296</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">2nd Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1976</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40144" data-sentence-id="41071" class="ldml-sentence">Because such <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> is not before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> today, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not evaluate the existence or the bounds of a potential exception to <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890837939" data-vids="890837939" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41071"><span class="ldml-refname">Chae</span></a></span>.</i></span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="41198" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr5">5.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41207" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have once before been asked to consider the propriety of <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41207"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> decision</span>, but were unable to do so for procedural reasons.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41339" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886063627" data-vids="886063627" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41207"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bullard v. Department of Corrections</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">949 P.2d 999, 1002</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1997</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41413" class="ldml-sentence">In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886063627" data-vids="886063627" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41413"><span class="ldml-refname">Bullard</span></a></span>,</i> the post-conviction <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> relied on <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41413"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> to order <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> discharged from imprisonment because his D.O.C. sentence included the parole period.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41578" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span>, however, had not appealed this order.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41628" class="ldml-sentence">The matter was before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> on a writ of mandamus because the <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span> refused to follow the judgment of the post-conviction <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41774" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886063627" data-vids="886063627" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41628"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41782" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> were without jurisdiction to review the post-conviction <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>'s actions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41198" data-sentence-id="41864" class="ldml-sentence">As our pronouncement today makes clear, if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> had enjoyed jurisdiction to review the order in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886063627" data-vids="886063627" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41864"><span class="ldml-refname">Bullard</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> would have overruled <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41864"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> and reversed <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="42030" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr6" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr6">6.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="42030" data-sentence-id="42039" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have announced today that, in the following <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> which rely upon <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887907567" data-vids="887907567" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42039"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Sandoval</i></span></a></span> analysis</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>, and remand to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> for reconsideration in light of <i class="ldml-italics">Craig</i> and <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885969502" data-vids="885969502" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42039"><span class="ldml-refname">Benavidez</span></a></span>: </i><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42039" data-refglobal="case:peoplevespinoza,no99sc432"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Espinoza</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 99SC432</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Colo. filed <span class="ldml-entity">June 4, 1999</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42039" data-refglobal="case:peoplevjones,no99sc332"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Jones</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 99SC332</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Colo. filed <span class="ldml-entity">May 14, 1999</span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="42407" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr7" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr7">7.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="42407" data-sentence-id="42416" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> recognize that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have held, in other contexts, that parole and imprisonment both constitute <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legal custody"</span> for certain purposes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42407" data-sentence-id="42550" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887882121" data-vids="887882121" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_42613,sentence_42416"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Davis</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">794 P.2d 159, 180-181</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1990</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">death penalty aggravator that <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"under sentence of imprisonment"</span> at time crime committed includes period of parole</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886443434" data-vids="886443434" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_42794,sentence_42416"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Campbell</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">742 P.2d 302, 309</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">parolee characterized in <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legal custody"</span> for purposes of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42416"><span class="ldml-cite">Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act</span></a></span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42407" data-sentence-id="42900" class="ldml-sentence">These holdings do not, in our view, alter the reasonable expectations of <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> negotiating a plea agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42407" data-sentence-id="43011" class="ldml-sentence">Mandatory parole simply is not a proper subject of negotiation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42407" data-sentence-id="43075" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will not presume that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> intended to speak to this topic unless the record clearly indicates otherwise.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="43204" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr8" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr8">8.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="43204" data-sentence-id="43213" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> explain today in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885969502" data-vids="885969502" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43213"><span class="ldml-refname">Benavidez</span></a></span>,</i> parole is not a direct consequence of the plea where <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> is subject to sentences to probation or community corrections, but not prison.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43204" data-sentence-id="43391" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885969502" data-vids="885969502" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43213"><span class="ldml-cite">986 P.2d at 950</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="43412" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr9" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr9">9.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="43412" data-sentence-id="43421" class="ldml-sentence">Although the mandatory parole requirement is itself a direct consequence of the guilty plea, the potential for transformation of the mandatory period into additional prison time is not an immediate and automatic result of pleading guilty.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43412" data-sentence-id="43660" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, such an outcome requires an affirmative action on the part of the offender — i.e., a parole violation — and is therefore a collateral consequence of the plea which need not be described at the providency hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43412" data-sentence-id="43881" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895271560" data-vids="895271560" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43660"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Birdsong</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">958 P.2d at 1128</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="43913" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr10" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr10">10.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="43913" data-sentence-id="43922" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> acknowledge that our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892642162" data-vids="892642162" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43922"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. District Court</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">868 P.2d 400, 405</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1994</span>)</span></a></span></span>, stated that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> need not be advised of the length of a parole term in order to enter a valid plea.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43913" data-sentence-id="44122" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span> concerned discretionary parole while our pronouncement today speaks to the mandatory variety required by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44122"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span></span></a></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="44276" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr11" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr11">11.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="44276" data-sentence-id="44285" class="ldml-sentence">In this respect, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> observe that it would not be proper to re-sentence <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> in such a way that the revised term of imprisonment falls outside of the ordinary presumptive range unless the original sentencing <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> had made findings of extraordinary circumstances sufficient to support such a deviation.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="44594" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr12" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr12">12.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="44594" data-sentence-id="44603" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891011448" data-vids="891011448" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44603"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Tyus</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">776 P.2d 1143</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> held that reversible error does not occur when <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> fails to advise <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> of mandatory parole, provided that the sentence actually imposed is less than the maximum that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was advised <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> could receive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44594" data-sentence-id="44903" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44594" data-sentence-id="44913" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891011448" data-vids="891011448" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44913"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Tyus</i></span></a></span> should not be read, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not understand it to mean, that the failure to advise of the fact and length of a mandatory parole term is not error or that such a failure will not constitute reversible error under some circumstances.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="45160" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr13" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr13">13.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="45160" data-sentence-id="45169" class="ldml-sentence">Craig's <span class="ldml-entity">post-conviction motion</span> claimed only that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had not been advised of mandatory parole at all.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45160" data-sentence-id="45270" class="ldml-sentence">In support of this notion, Craig relied on the absence of a reference to mandatory parole in his plea agreement document, but apparently ignored both the advisement on this subject in paragraph fourteen of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45270"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 11</span></a></span> advisement and <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s oral advisement pertaining to the same at the providency hearing.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="45591" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr14" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr14">14.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="45591" data-sentence-id="45600" class="ldml-sentence">In fact, Craig stated that it was not necessary for him to appear before the post-conviction <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> specifically requested that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> not be ordered to appear.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="45764" class="ldml-paragraph "> <a href="#note-ref-fr15" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr15">15.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="45764" data-sentence-id="45773" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that a mittimus that is wholly silent as to the mandatory parole period must be read to include this requirement, it does not follow that a mittimus or judgment which specifically addresses mandatory parole may be disregarded by the <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Corrections</span> even if it is erroneous.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45764" data-sentence-id="46078" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886063627" data-vids="886063627" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45773"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bullard</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">949 P.2d at 1002</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890096025" data-vids="890096025" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45773"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Meredith v. Zavaras</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">954 P.2d 597, 603</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p>
</div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>