People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
248 Cal. App. 4th 434
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Albert Sokolich was convicted of multiple sex offenses against children and sentenced to a determinate prison term with a scheduled release in April 2009.
- DCR records at various times listed two possible release dates (April 20, 2009 and incorrectly April 24, 2009); some internal documents reflected the corrected April 20 date while many DMH and referral materials showed April 24.
- DMH evaluators recommended civil commitment as a sexually violent predator and the District Attorney prepared and filed an SVP commitment petition on April 20, 2009 (the date Sokolich’s determinate sentence showed as his release date).
- Sokolich moved to dismiss the petition as untimely under Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601(a)(2), arguing the petition was filed on his release date when he was no longer in custody pursuant to a determinate prison term and that the People’s reliance on the wrong date was negligent, not a good-faith mistake.
- The trial court granted dismissal, finding Sokolich was not “in custody” under § 6601(a)(2) on April 20 and that the DA’s office had been negligent (so no good-faith mistake).
- The Court of Appeal granted the People’s writ, concluding the trial court correctly found Sokolich was not in custody pursuant to a determinate term on April 20 but erred in finding no good-faith mistake; the court ordered reinstatement of the petition and vacation of the release order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sokolich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sokolich was "in custody" pursuant to a determinate prison term under § 6601(a)(2) on April 20, 2009 | The April 9 custodial order and continued physical custody meant he was "in custody" when the petition was filed | April 20 was his scheduled release date under the determinate sentence, so by statute custody pursuant to that sentence had ended and petition was untimely | Held: Court of Appeal agreed with trial court that on April 20 he was not in custody pursuant to his determinate term (Franklin controls) |
| Whether the petition must be dismissed despite untimely filing because the DA’s reliance on the incorrect release date was negligent rather than a "good faith mistake" under § 6601(a)(2) | The DA reasonably relied on DMH/DCR documents showing April 24; the mistake was in good faith and statute protects such errors | The DA had access to corrected DCR materials and district attorney procedures required verification, so the error was negligent and not "good faith" | Held: Court of Appeal reversed trial court — mere negligence does not preclude "good faith mistake" under § 6601(a)(2); the record demonstrates a genuine good-faith error, so dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lucas, 53 Cal.4th 839 (describing SVP referral/evaluation/filing process and requirement that petition be filed while inmate in lawful custody)
- In re Smith, 42 Cal.4th 1251 (legislative history and background for § 6601(a)(2) "good faith mistake" amendment)
- In re Franklin, 169 Cal.App.4th 386 (interpretation that petition must be filed while one of § 6601(a)(2) conditions exists)
- People v. Superior Court (Small), 159 Cal.App.4th 301 (distinguishing failures of timely referral from good-faith factual/legal mistakes)
- People v. Superior Court (Whitley), 68 Cal.App.4th 1383 (triggering case prompting legislative response adopting good-faith protection)
- People v. Dias, 170 Cal.App.3d 756 (holding good-faith administrative mistake did not invalidate SVP commitment)