Opinion ID: 844216
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In re Lucas on Habeas Corpus

Text: Lucas went to prison for failing to register as a sex offender. [7] His scheduled release date was October 12, 2008. On December 21, 2007, the DCR Secretary determined that Lucas met initial SVP screening standards. Among other offenses, he had been convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor, [8] which involved intercourse and sodomy with an eight-year-old girl. The screening form was not received by the DCR's classifications services unit until October 1, 2008, 11 days before Lucas's scheduled release date. The record contains no explanation for this delay. The DCR referred the matter to the Board the next day, and on October 7, the Board referred it to the DMH. On October 9, the Board issued a 45-day hold to facilitate full SVP evaluations to be concluded by DMH. During the hold period, three of the four psychologists who evaluated Lucas concluded that he met the SVP criteria, and the district attorney filed a commitment petition. Lucas moved to dismiss the petition. Like Sharkey, he argued he was not in lawful custody when the SVP petition was filed because good cause had not been shown for the 45-day hold. [9] The motion was denied. Lucas's petition for writ of habeas corpus to review this decision was denied by the appellate division of the superior court. When Lucas sought habeas corpus relief in the Court of Appeal, it issued an order to show cause limited to the claim that [Lucas]'s extended commitment under Welfare & Institutions Code section 6601.3 was unlawful because there was no `showing of good cause' as required by this statute. The Court of Appeal held the regulation invalid. Because regulation 2600.1[, subdivision](d) purports to allow a finding of good cause for a 45-day hold based solely on evidence that the inmate may be a sexually violent predator, and does not require a showing of exceptional circumstances that precluded the completion of the sexually violent predator evaluation within the normal timeframe, the regulation is invalid, as it is inconsistent with the legislative intent behind section 6601.3. However, the court concluded that the Board's reliance on the regulation's definition of good cause was excusable as a good faith mistake of law. When the board placed the 45-day hold on Lucas in October 2008, there was no judicial or administrative decision that had addressed the validity of regulation 2600.1[, subdivision](d), and the regulation was, to all appearances, valid. Thus, the board could have relied in good faith on that regulation in placing the hold on Lucas. Accordingly, the court discharged the order to show cause and denied the habeas corpus petition. We granted Lucas's petition for review.