Following a Proposition 47 resentencing, a trial court may, in its discretion, order one year of supervised parole without consideration of presentence custody credits. In 2007, Hickman pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) with three prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and was granted probation. His probation was revoked in 2012 and he served two years in prison. After he was released on parole, Hickman filed a Proposition 47 petition to reduce his possession of methamphetamine conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor. The superior court granted his petition, resentenced Hickman to one year in county jail with credit for time served, and placed Hickman on one year parole pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (d). The trial court refused to deduct Hickman’s excess custody credits from the one year parole period. He appealed. Held: Affirmed. A parole period can generally be reduced by excess custody credits. (In re Sosa (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1005-1006.) This rule is based on Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (c), which provides, in part, that a “term of imprisonment” includes any period of imprisonment and parole. Here, the Court of Appeal concluded that “Proposition 47 parole supervision, which is a form of misdemeanor parole, is not a term of imprisonment within the meaning of section 2900.5, subdivision (c).” (Cf. People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635, 638-639.) This conclusion is consistent with Couzens and Bigelow’s analysis of Proposition 47’s one-year parole period. Such a rule does not violate equal protection even though it results in more lenient parole rules for violent felony offenders than it does for nonviolent drug offenders resentenced under Proposition 47 because nonviolent drug offenders and violent felony offenders are not similarly situated.