And he is not free from legal restraint by the penal authorities, but is constructively a prisoner of the state in the legal custody and under the control of the department of institutions. Schooley v. Wilson, 150 Colo. 483, 374 P.2d 353 (1962).

Release on parole in no way alters the fact that appellant is still under sentence; that he is in technical custody; and that he is under supervision. People v. Salvador, 189 Colo. 181, 539 P.2d 1273 (1975).

Parolee is not in custody of department, for purposes of this section, from time parole detainer is lodged against him, where parolee had been arrested and confined for acts of forgery and remained in physical custody of Denver authorities until his parole was revoked. Santisteven v. Johnson, 751 P.2d 621 (Colo. 1988).

Tolling of expiration of parole upon the filing of a violation complaint does not impose additional punishment on parole violator. Goetz v. Gunter, 830 P.2d 1154 (Colo. App. 1992).

The phrase "return to said custody" refers to the time of parole revocation. Wiedemer v. People, 784 P.2d 739 (Colo. 1989).

When a parolee is returned to custody, the time between his or her release and return to custody is not considered part of the term of the sentence. "Return to custody" means the time at which parole is revoked, not the time at which the defendant is reincarcerated. People v. Norton, 49 P.3d 344 (Colo. App. 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 63 P.3d 339 (Colo. 2003).

The probationer has a substantially different status from that of the parolee. The imposition of sentence in his case has been suspended and thus unlike the parolee he is not serving a sentence while on probation. Hutchison v. Patterson, 267 F. Supp. 433 (D. Colo. 1967).

Parole does not operate as a discharge. A paroled prisoner who receives a ticket and leaves the prison as provided by this section is not discharged and can later be restrained as a parole violator. Johnson v. Tinsley, 157 Colo. 539, 404 P.2d 159 (1965) (decided under repealed § 27-20-120).