Opinion
In this case we construe the statutory speedy sentencing provisions contained in Penal Code sections 1203.2a and 1381 1 with regard to defendants who are placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended for one offense and who, while still on probation, are convicted of an unrelated misdemeanor or felony and imprisoned in either county jail or state prison on the unrelated offense. We also consider how the two statutes relate to each other.
For a defendant placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended who is subsequently incarcerated for a second offense, section 1203.2a provides that the court that granted probation “shall have jurisdiction to impose [the suspended] sentence” if the probationer asks the probationary court to impose sentence “in his or her absence and without him or her being represented by counsel.” (§ 1203.2a.) Once the court receives a section 1203.2a request in a situation “in which sentence has not previously been imposed, the court is deprived of jurisdiction over defendant if it does not impose sentence and issue its commitment or make other final order terminating its jurisdiction over defendant in the case within 30 days after defendant has, in the manner prescribed by this section, requested imposition of sentence.” (Ibid., italics added.)
Section 1381 provides, in pertinent part, that a state prisoner may demand to be brought “for sentencing within 90 days” of giving appropriate notice to the district attorney where “any other indictment, information, complaint, or any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced!” is currently pending. (Italics added.) “In the event that the defendant is not brought to trial or for sentencing within the 90 days the court in which the charge or sentencing is pending shall . . . dismiss the action.” (Ibid., italics added.)
We next consider whether, when a trial court fails to comply with the 90-day time requirement of section 1381 after an incarcerated probationer has made a proper section 1381 demand for sentencing, the court must dismiss the conviction underlying the original grant of probation or simply dismiss the pending probation revocation proceeding. As to this issue, we shall conclude that, when the trial court fails to comply with the 90-day time requirement of section 1381, it must dismiss only the pending probation revocation proceeding, not the conviction underlying the original grant of probation.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2003, in Yolo County, defendant pleaded no contest to unlawfully transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and he admitted he had a prior conviction involving a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2). The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years under the provisions of Proposition 36, requiring participation in a drug treatment program. The court then suspended the imposition of sentence. On June 7, 2004, the 2003 grant of probation was summarily revoked. On October 29, 2004, defendant waived a hearing on formal revocation and admitted the alleged violation. The court reinstated probation that same day.
On February 2, 2005, 2 in an unrelated case in Sacramento County, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). That trial court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. The Yolo County probation office then filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation based on the new felony convictions on July 12, and on July 19 the Yolo Superior Court summarily revoked defendant’s probation and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
On July 19, a prison counselor advised defendant that a detainer had been filed against him, that he was wanted by the West Sacramento Police
In response to defendant’s section 1381 demand, the Yolo Superior Court filed an order for removal ordering the sheriff to bring defendant from state prison to court to appear on the pending criminal proceeding. Defendant appeared in court on October 6, and requested that the probation matter be set for hearing and a preadmission report. The prosecutor in open court then mistakenly stated that her office had received defendant’s section 1381 demand on July 28. Based on that statement, the court clerk calculated section 138l’s 90-day deadline as October 26, rather than the correct date, which was October 24. Accordingly, the court set the probation revocation hearing for October 25, the 91st day after the receipt of defendant’s section 1381 demand.
On October 25, defense counsel informed the court defendant had completed his prison sentence and was being held in custody only on the probation violation. Defense counsel noted a potential section 1381 or section 1203.2a timeliness issue and asked for time to file a “brief to dismiss because of the lack of jurisdiction” because sections “1203.2[a] and 1381 have time requirements.” The following day, defense counsel reiterated that “[t]his is the 1381 case.” On October 26, counsel entered a prospective time waiver to brief the timeliness issue after the prosecutor agreed it would not affect whether “the time has expired” to proceed with the probation violation.
At the hearing on December 2, defense counsel did not brief or orally argue the motion to dismiss under section 1381. Instead, after defendant testified that the prison counselor “decides whether you need a 1381” and instructs on how to proceed with the request, defense counsel claimed defendant’s section 1381 demand must be deemed a section 1203.2a request
The Yolo Superior Court rejected these arguments, reasoning that defendant had not made a demand to be sentenced within 30 days as required by section 1203.2a. Defendant then admitted the probation violation, and the court revoked probation and imposed a five-year prison sentence for defendant’s 2003 conviction and accompanying enhancement.
The Court of Appeal reversed. It reasoned (1) the speedy sentencing rights provided by both sections 1381 and 1203.2a apply to a probation revocation proceeding where imposition of sentence had been suspended, (2) the Yolo Superior Court sentenced defendant in the probation revocation proceeding beyond the 90-day time period mandated by section 1381, (3) “[bjecause counsel was ineffective in failing to timely move to dismiss, the revocation proceeding must be voided (as it should have been dismissed on this jurisdictional basis) and the sentence imposed at that proceeding must be vacated,” and (4) “under section 1387 the People may refile the probation revocation proceeding, obtain a summary revocation of probation, and seek a revocation order and sentence (which accounts for all time served) before defendant’s tolled probationary period ends on November 9, 2007.”
Defendant and the Attorney General separately petitioned for review. We granted their petitions.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Background
1. The Relevant Statutes
a. Section 1381
As originally enacted in 1931, section 1381 provided that a state prisoner may demand to be brought to trial within 90 days of giving appropriate notice to the district attorney where any other indictment or information was currently pending. (Stats. 1931, ch. 486, § 1, p. 1060.)
In relevant part, section 1381 now provides: “Whenever a defendant has been convicted, in any court of this state, of the commission of a felony . . . and has been sentenced to and has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison . . . and at the time of the entry upon the term of imprisonment . . . there is pending, in any court of this state, . . . any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced, the district attorney of the county in which the matters are pending shall bring the defendant . . . for sentencing within 90 days after the person shall have delivered to said district attorney written notice of the place of his or her imprisonment. . . and his or her desire to be brought... for sentencing .... In the event that the defendant is not brought to trial or for sentencing within the 90 days the court in which the charge or sentencing is pending shall, on motion or suggestion of the district attorney, or of the defendant . . . , or on its own motion, dismiss the action.” (Italics added.)
b. Section 1203.2a
When a defendant is placed on probation, the trial court has two options. It may choose to select a particular sentence, within the available sentencing range, that would go into effect if the grant of probation is subsequently revoked and not reinstated. The court revoking probation under those circumstances must impose the sentence previously imposed at the time of the grant of probation. This option is referred to as suspending the
execution
of sentence. Alternatively, the court granting probation may choose not to set a particular sentence that would be imposed if the grant of probation is subsequently revoked and not reinstated. In that case, the court
Since it was enacted in 1941, section 1203.2a has provided speedy sentencing procedures for probationers incarcerated for another offense. It provides one set of procedures for probation with the imposition of sentence suspended and other procedures for probation with the execution of sentence suspended. 5 As relevant here, section 1203.2a provides that, “[i]f any defendant who has been released on probation is committed to a prison in this state ... for another offense, the court which released him or her on probation shall have jurisdiction to impose sentence, if no sentence has previously been imposed for the offense for which he or she was granted probation, in the absence of the defendant, on the request of the defendant made through his or her counsel, or by himself or herself in writing, if. . . the defendant. . . states that he or she wishes the court to impose sentence in the case in which he or she was released on probation, in his or her absence and without him or her being represented by counsel. [][] The probation officer may, upon learning of the defendant’s imprisonment, and must within 30 days after being notified in writing . . . , report such commitment to the court which released him or her on probation. [H ... If sentence has not been previously imposed[,] and if the defendant has requested the court ... to impose sentence ... in his or her absence and without the presence of counsel to represent him or her, the court shall impose sentence and issue its commitment, or shall make other final order terminating its jurisdiction over the defendant in the case in which the order of probation was made. .. .If the case is one in which sentence has not previously been imposed, the court is deprived of jurisdiction over defendant if it does not impose sentence and issue its commitment or make other final order terminating its jurisdiction over defendant in the case within 30 days after defendant has, in the manner prescribed by this section, requested imposition of sentence. ['][] Upon imposition of sentence hereunder the commitment shall be dated as of the date upon which probation was granted. If the defendant is then in a state prison
2. The Conflict in Our Appellate Courts
There currently exist two conflicts in our appellate courts regarding these two statutes. One court has held that a defendant placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended must proceed under section 1203.2a, while others have held that a defendant may choose to request speedy sentencing under section 1381 or its counterpart for federal prisoners, section 1381.5. 6 With regard to the second conflict, assuming a defendant placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended may request speedy sentencing under section 1381 or section 1381.5, some courts have assumed that the “dismiss the action” consequence of failing to sentence such a defendant within the 90-day statutory limit requires dismissal of the probation violation proceedings, while one court has assumed that it requires dismissal of the convictions underlying the grant of probation. This opinion will address and resolve both conflicts.
3. The Relevant Case Law
Two years after section 1381 was amended to include speedy sentencing rights for a defendant serving a state prison commitment who has pending a criminal proceeding wherein he or she “remains to be sentenced,” an appellate court considered the case of defendant Rudman, who, while on felony probation in Orange County with imposition of his sentence suspended, was convicted of a felony in another county and was imprisoned as a
Since
Rudman,
most appellate cases considering the issue have agreed that a defendant placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended and then incarcerated on a second charge may demand speedy sentencing in a pending probation revocation proceeding under either section 1381 or section 1203.2a. (See, e.g.,
People
v.
Johnson
(1987)
The majority in
People v. Broughton
(2003)
In defendant’s case, the Court of Appeal agreed with Rudman and criticized the reasoning of Broughton’s majority. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the Court of Appeal and with Rudman that (1) a defendant placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended who is subsequently imprisoned on another charge may opt to demand speedy sentencing under section 1381 rather than under section 1203.2a, and (2) the consequence for the probationary court’s failure to meet the 90-day time limit set forth in section 1381 is only dismissal of the probation revocation proceedings, and not the dismissal of the convictions underlying the grant of probation.
B. Analysis
1. Section 1203.2a Is Not the Exclusive Speedy Sentencing Procedure Available to Incarcerated Probationers
We find nothing in section 1203.2a’s language or legislative history that mandates it is the exclusive speedy sentencing procedure available to a defendant placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended and then incarcerated for another offense.
“The purpose of section 1203.2a is to prevent inadvertent consecutive sentences which would deprive defendant of the benefit of section 669, providing that sentence shall be concurrent unless the court expressly orders otherwise. [Citations.]”
(People v. Ruster, supra,
“[RJequests for sentencing pursuant to section 1203.2a must be in strict compliance with that section. [Citations.] . . . [I]f the court pronounces judgment in the absence of such a request and waiver, it violates the defendant’s constitutional rights to have the assistance of and to be personally present with counsel.
(People
v.
Ruster, supra,
Nothing in the language of section 1203.2a precludes the Legislature from providing an alternative procedure in which an incarcerated probationer may demand speedy sentencing
while retaining his or her right to be present with counsel
when sentence is imposed. Section 1381 now provides that an incarcerated defendant can demand to be brought to any court in which he or she has pending “any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced.” The plain language of section 1381 encompasses a defendant placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended and subsequently incarcerated for another offense because, “if the trial court at a sentencing hearing suspends imposition of sentence and places the defendant on probation, the defendant has not yet been sentenced.”
(Broughton, supra,
As argued by defendant in rebuttal to the People’s oral argument, an incarcerated probationer serving a lengthy term of imprisonment on an unrelated case may wish to waive the right to counsel and his or her personal appearance at sentencing on a probation violation when the maximum prison sentence that could be imposed on the violation is less than the sentence being served. Alternatively, an incarcerated probationer who is serving a
As discussed further below, we find no reason not to give effect to the plain language of both section 1203.2a and section 1381. Moreover, “[o]ur common practice is to ‘construct] statutes, when reasonable, to avoid difficult constitutional questions.’
(Le Francois v. Goel
(2005)
2. Section 1381 Also Applies to Incarcerated Probationers
Nothing in either section 1203.2a or section 1381 suggests that an incarcerated probationer must waive counsel and the right to appear in order to receive speedy sentencing. Instead, “where probation has been granted and the proceedings have been suspended without entry of judgment, [the probationer] is subject to no disabilities whatsoever except those specifically declared by some other provision of law or affirmatively prescribed by the court as terms or conditions of probation. The probationer in [this] case still retains his ordinary civil rights, unless the court has restricted them, among them being as a matter of law the right to a hearing and arraignment, with counsel, before judgment [and imposition of sentence] in the event that he is charged with a violation of the terms of his probation order.
(In re Levi
(1952) ...
By its plain language, section 1381 appears to apply to incarcerated probationers facing a probation revocation based on the subsequent conviction that led to the current incarceration. It applies to any pending “criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced.” (Ibid.) We see no reason not to give effect to this plain language.
“Under settled canons of statutory construction, in construing a statute we ascertain the Legislature’s intent in order to effectuate the law’s purpose.
(Dyna-Med, Inc.
v.
Fair Employment & Housing Com.
(1987)
As the Court of Appeal noted, “the principal purpose ‘of section 1381 “is to permit a defendant to obtain concurrent sentencing at the hands of the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending, if such is the court’s discretion.” ’ ”
Here, the plain meaning of the phrase “there is pending . . . any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced” (§ 1381) includes a probation revocation proceeding in which the imposition of sentence was suspended when probation was granted. We note that even the
Broughton
majority, while ultimately interpreting this phrase to mean the “initial sentencing hearing” rather than the sentencing hearing following probation revocation, conceded that, “if the trial court at a sentencing hearing suspends imposition of sentence and places the defendant on probation, the defendant has not yet been sentenced . . . .”
(Broughton, supra,
Nothing in the plain language of section 1381 or 1381.5 suggests that the sections were intended to exclude defendants who were placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended. The
Broughton
majority based the exclusion of such defendants, in part, on the existence of section 1203.2a’s speedy sentencing procedures for situations in which the imposition or the execution of sentence was suspended. Again, we agree with the Court of Appeal that “the
Broughton
majority failed to account for substantive distinctions between sections 1381 and 1203.2a. [Citation.] Under section 1203.2a, a defendant may request imposition of sentence only if he waives the right to be present and have counsel represent him at the hearing; in other words, speedy sentencing under section 1203.2a is sentencing in absentia. In contrast, section 1381 gives the defendant an opportunity to appear before the court with counsel, so that he may defend against the probation revocation charges, the sentence, or both. [Citations.]” Applying the plain meaning doctrine to the relevant portion of section 1381, we conclude that, “[d]uring the period that the imposition of judgment and sentence is suspended a defendant ‘remains to be sentenced’ within the contemplation of section 1381. [Citation.]”
(People v. Ruster, supra,
Broughton
reached a different conclusion from the
Rudman
court. The
Broughton
majority believed that section 1381.5 entitled a defendant “to be ‘brought ... for sentencing’ within the time constraints of section 1381.5, with the consequence of the failure to do so dismissal
of the underlying
conviction.”
(Broughton, supra,
In any event, we conclude that Broughton’s statutory interpretation may “ ‘lead to absurd results’ ” that “ ‘are to be avoided.’ ”
(People v. Loeun
(1997)
In this context, the phrase “dismiss the action” refers back to the action that is pending, in this case, the probation revocation proceeding. (§ 1381.) The 1971 addition of the phrases “any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced” and “or for sentencing” necessitated a concomitant modification of the consequence for failure to meet the 90-day requirement from “dismiss the charge,” which would apply if there is pending an “indictment, information, complaint,” to a word that would encompass both dismissal of the charges and dismissal of “any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced.” (Ibid.) As the Court of Appeal aptly noted, “Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘action’ broadly as a ‘civil or criminal judicial proceeding.’ (Black’s Law Dict. (7th ed. 1999) p. 28.) Under this definition, a probation revocation proceeding is an action.” Reading the above language as the Broughton majority suggests would mean that the failure to abide by the 90-day time requirement of section 1381 could force a court to dismiss the charges against a defendant who years earlier had either admitted the charges by a plea of guilty or no contest or was found guilty by trial. We conclude that the Legislature would not have intended such an absurd result when it expanded the speedy trial provisions in section 1381 to include “any criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced.” (§ 1381, italics added.) 9
We also disagree with Broughton’s claim that the “fundamental policies advanced by speedy trial statutes such as section 1381.5—avoiding prolonged imprisonment, limiting anxiety attendant to an unresolved criminal charge,
4. Defendant’s Probation Has Not Terminated in This Case
In pertinent part, subdivision (a) of section 1387 provides that “[a]n order terminating an action pursuant to this chapter [which includes section 1381,] ... is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense if it is a felony . . . and the action has been previously terminated pursuant to this chapter . . . .”
We agree with the Court of Appeal that section 1387 allows the People “an opportunity to refile the probation revocation proceeding within defendant’s probationary period” after a dismissal of the revocation proceedings under section 1381. Section 1387 refers to an “action [that] has been previously terminated pursuant to this chapter” (§ 1387, subd. (a)), and actions to revoke probation that are dismissed under section 1381 for a violation of the 90-day rule are terminated under the same chapter (i.e., 8) as section 1387. While section 1387 does not by its terms say anything about the refiling of actions to revoke probation, we read the term “any other prosecution” as encompassing a second filing of an action to revoke probation. We have concluded that the “action” to be dismissed in the case of a prisoner who was placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended and was subsequently incarcerated on another charge who has sought but not received speedy sentencing under section 1381 is the proceeding to revoke probation and impose sentence. That holding could be unfair to prisoners if the only consequence of noncompliance with the 90-day requirement of section 1381 were the dismissal of the proceeding to revoke probation. Under such a rule, after a prisoner demanded sentencing under section 1381, the People or the court could neglect to act, the action could be dismissed after 90 days, and this cycle could occur repeatedly until the opportunity for concurrent sentencing was lost though the passage of time. Such an interpretation of the interplay between section 1381 and section 1387 would eviscerate section 1381 as a procedural protection and would frustrate the Legislature’s intent to “[p]romote the speedy disposition of pending sentencings” for imprisoned defendants. (Assem. Com. on Criminal Justice, Analysis of Sen. Bill
The Court of Appeal concluded the actual date defendant’s probation would end was November 9, 2007. It first noted that defendant’s probation began on October 31, 2003, and that, absent any tolling, the People “would have lost the opportunity to refile the probation revocation proceeding under section 1387 after October 31, 2006, because a probation revocation order must naturally be made within the probationary period.” Noting that summary revocation of probation tolls the running of the probationary period (§ 1203.2, subd. (a)), the Court of Appeal then reasoned, “However, defendant’s probation was summarily revoked on two occasions during that three-year period . . . [1] . . . from June 7, 2004, until October 29, 2004, when defendant was reinstated on probation . . . [and] from July 12, 2005, to February 27, 2006, when defendant was sentenced to the five years in prison for the offenses underlying his Yolo County probation. The total period of tolling was 374 days.”
The People contend probation was never reinstated after it was summarily revoked on July 12, 2005. They count October 31, 2003, as “day one” of the three-year probationary period, or “1,095 days.” They argue “day 221 of that period elapsed 220 days later, on June 7, 2004. [][] On June 7, 2004, probation was summarily revoked. . . . [B]y statute [(§ 1203.2, subd. (a))] the running of the period was tolled on the days between (but not including) June 7 and October 29. . . . [C]ounting October 29, 2004, as day 222 of the probationary period, it follows that day 478 of that period elapsed 256 days later, on July 12, 2005. [f] On July 12, 2005, probation was again summarily revoked. Probation was never reinstated. Instead: (1) on February 17, 2006, [defendant] admitted he violated the conditions of probation; (2) on February 27, 2006, the court found [defendant] unsuitable for probation and denied his request for release on probation; and (3) on February 27, 2006, the court terminated its jurisdiction over [defendant] by committing him to state prison for the 2003 conviction, [f] . . . [M]ore than 600 days remained of the three-year probationary period when the running of the period was tolled on July 12, 2005, and that period never resumed running.”
“The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the probationary period.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) Although we conclude that the probation revocation proceeding that was pending when defendant requested speedy sentencing must be dismissed under section 1381, the trial court did not have the benefit of hindsight. Probation was summarily revoked on July 12, 2005. On October 25, 2005, the trial court properly
in. DISPOSITION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed to the extent that it ordered Yolo County Superior Court to void the challenged probation revocation and sentencing proceeding (as it should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds) and vacate the sentence imposed at that proceeding. Defendant’s probation has been tolled, at a minimum, between June 7, 2004, and October
George, C. J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Moreno, J., and Corrigan, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied April 15, 2009.
Notes
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
All further calendar references are to the year 2005 unless otherwise specified.
In pertinent part, the form read as follows:
“YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED (refer only to item(s) marked):
“You may request disposition of untried charges in accordance with Section 1381 [Penal Code]
“You may request disposition of probation in accordance with Section 1203.2a [Penal Code]”
There was a printed box to the left of each of the above request options. Only the section 1381 request option was marked with an “X.” That X was part of the standard form; it was not written by hand.
He argued the “clock” started either when the district attorney received defendant’s section 1381 notice on July 26 or when the trial court issued an order to produce defendant in court on August 3.
The imposition of sentence was suspended when defendant was placed on probation. We limit our discussion and analysis accordingly. When we refer to an incarcerated probationer in this opinion, we are referring to a probationer placed on probation with imposition of sentence suspended. We express no view as to whether section 1381 applies to a defendant in a probation violation proceeding who had received a specific prison sentence when placed on probation with execution of that sentence suspended. We simply note that one appellate court has held that probationers sentenced to a specific prison term and then placed on probation with the execution of sentence suspended fall outside the scope of section 1381.5, the speedy trial and sentencing statute for federal prisoners that is analogous to section 1381.
(Boles v. Superior Court
(1974)
Because section 1381.5 and section 1381 afford similar rights to federal and state prisoners, respectively, cases interpreting one of these two sections are persuasive authority for interpreting the other.
(People v. Garcia
(1985)
In
People v. Banks, supra,
The People have adopted this interpretation, suggesting that an incarcerated defendant could pursue speedy sentencing under section 1381, “while hoping for a technical error . . . which might eliminate that same conviction.”
In addition to the current language of section 1381 quoted above, the statute provides, in relevant part, as follows: “If a charge is filed against a person during the time the person is serving a sentence in any state prison ... it is hereby made mandatory upon the district attorney ... to bring it to trial within 90 days after the person shall have delivered to said district attorney written notice of the place of his or her imprisonment. . . and his or her desire to be brought to trial upon the charge, unless a continuance is requested or consented to by the person, ... in which event the 90-day period shall commence to run anew from the date to which the request or consent continued the trial. In the event the action is not brought to trial within the 90 days the court in which the action is pending shall, on motion or suggestion of the district attorney, or of the defendant or person committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections . . . , or on its own motion, dismiss the charge.” (Italics added.) Use of the word “charge” in this context leaves no doubt that the entire criminal proceeding must be dismissed under these circumstances. On the other hand, the statute’s use of the phrase “dismiss the action” in the circumstance at issue in this case suggests that, when the defendant only remains to be sentenced, a less draconian sanction is contemplated.
We disapprove of language to the contrary in
People
v.
Tapia
(2001)
We note that we cannot adopt defendant’s interpretation of the statutory tolling provisions for the additional reason that it ignores the plain language of section 1203, subdivision (a), and leads to an absurd result that the Legislature could not have intended. (See
Green
v.
State of California, supra,