In In re Bush (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 133, the defendant had been sentenced to an indeterminate life term in 1985, and was eventually found suitable for parole in 2004. (Bush, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp. 138-139.) Although the Board's decision granting parole was final as of November 15, 2004, prior to Bush's release the Governor requested an en banc review of the suitability determination. (Id. at p. 139.) Bush's petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted on the grounds that the Governor's request for en banc review was untimely, and Bush was released from prison, subject to a five-year parole period, on March 19, 2005. (Ibid.) He again petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that because he had over 20 years of custody credits and his base term was set at 12 years, six months, the excess time should be credited against his parole period. (Ibid.) The superior court denied the petition, rejecting the argument that Bush was entitled to credit against his parole term for the days by which his actual time in prison exceeded the base term set by the Board, but granted the petition to the extent it sought credits for the period Bush remained in custody while the Governor's untimely request for en banc review was pending. (Ibid.) Raising the same arguments, Bush filed an original proceeding in the Court of Appeal. After analyzing the determinate sentencing law and the law relating to parole of those serving indeterminate life terms, the court concluded that the phrase "term of imprisonment" as used in section 2900.5, subdivision (c) "includes the time a life prisoner lawfully spends in prison custody awaiting a determination of suitability for parole." (Bush, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 143.) Because Bush was serving an indeterminate life sentence, rather than a determinate term, he "was lawfully confined while serving time in prison awaiting a suitability determination, even though the length of his incarceration was greater than the base term ultimately set by the Board." (Id. at p. 144.)