In Re Lucas
53 Cal. 4th 839
Cal.2012Background
- Consolidated cases assess what showing is required to postpone filing an SVP petition beyond a inmate's scheduled release date to complete a full SVP evaluation.
- Petitioners Sharkey and Lucas challenge the Board of Parole Hearings’ (Board) use of a 45‑day hold under Welfare & Institutions Code §6601.3 to extend custody for SVP evaluation.
- The petition must be filed while the inmate is in lawful custody; custody may extend up to 45 days beyond release if good cause is shown.
- Regulation 2600.1(d) defines good cause as evidence an inmate may be an SVP, not a justification for delaying the petition; the regulation was upheld by some courts but later deemed invalid.
- The Court holds the regulation invalid but the Board’s reliance on it was excusable as a good faith mistake of law; remedies were entered accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the regulatory definition of good cause valid? | Lucas/Sharkey argue regulation 2600.1(d) is invalid. | Board/People contend regulation is a valid interpretation. | Regulation 2600.1(d) invalid. |
| Was the Board's reliance on the invalid regulation excusable as a good faith mistake of law? | Board’s reliance was not excusable. | Reliance was excusable given lack of prior decisions questioning validity. | Reliance excusable as a good faith mistake of law. |
| What is the proper understanding of 'good cause' for a 45‑day hold under §6601.3? | Good cause must justify the extension time. | Good cause not tied to SVP-finding; tied to extension need. | Court construes 'good cause' to justify delay independent of SVP determinations. |
| Does §6601.3 require a separate, legally sufficient justification for extending custody beyond the release date? | Yes, separate justification is required. | Interpretation should align with legislative intent to allow hold. | Yes; regulation failed to reflect this requirement. |
| Does the 45‑day hold survive judicial challenges given the regulatory defect? | The petition should be dismissed due to untimeliness. | Remedy via good faith mistake of law preserves petition. | Remedies affirmed; petitions proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (Cal. 1999) ( SVP process balanced against public safety; foundational to SVP scheme)
- Allen v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.4th 843 (Cal. 2008) (SVP framework and rights considerations)
- Ramirez v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 980 (Cal. 2009) (extrinsic aids in statutory construction; regulatory interpretation)
- Whitley v. Whitley II, 68 Cal.App.4th 1389 (Cal. App. 1999) (good faith mistake of law context; reliance on regulation before invalidation)
- Terhune v. Superior Court, 65 Cal.App.4th 864 (Cal. App. 1998) (predecessor regulatory framework; historical background to SVP procedures)
- People v. Smith, 42 Cal.4th 1251 (Cal. 2008) (good faith mistake of law analysis under §6601(a)(2))