May, J.
Joseph L. Wilson appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify sentence. He argues the trial court erred as a matter of law when it determined it did not have authority to convert Wilson’s time on parole to time on probation. We affirm.
…
Wilson contends that, under that statutory language, the sentencing court can modify a sentence “any time after the Defendant begins serving their sentence” and the statute “contains no specific language confining its application to the executed portion of the Defendant’s sentence, nor does it preclude application to defendants on parole at the time of the petition.”
Pursuant to plain language of Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17(e), a trial court may modify a defendant’s sentence any time “after . . . a convicted person begins serving the person’s sentence;” and it is true that parole occurs after a convicted person begins serving the person’s sentence. However, the word “parole” does not appear in any portion of Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17. We “may not ‘engraft new words’ onto a statute[.]” Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1026 (Ind. 2013) (quoting State ex. rel. Monchecourt v. Vigo Circuit Court, 240 Ind. 168, 172, 162 N.E.2d 614, 616 (1959))… Here the legislature chose to exclude the word “parole” from the plain language of Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17. Based thereon, we conclude the legislature intended for the trial court’s authority to modify a sentence to extend only until the sentence had been served and not while the person was on parole.
Further, a person who is on parole “is not discharged [from parole] until the Indiana Parole Board acts to discharge him.” Majors v. Broglin, 531 N.E.2d 189, 190 (Ind. 1988). “It has long been the law in Indiana that the Parole Board has almost absolute discretion in carrying out its duties and that it is not subject to the supervision of the Courts.” Murphy v. Indiana Parole Bd., 272 Ind. 200, 204, 397 N.E.2d 259, 261 (Ind. 1979). Indiana courts “can not act as a ‘Super-Parole Board.’” Id. Therefore, the appropriate place for Wilson to request modification would be the Parole Board, not a trial court.
Wilson has not demonstrated the trial court has authority to modify Wilson’s sentence while he is on parole. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.