Sexually Violent Predator Act Allows a Good Faith Exception to Recommit
Paul Wallin
February 04, 2010
You Must Be Aware of WI 6600 Implications if You Plan to Represent Anyone Accused of a Sexual Offense in California
The Sexually Violent Predator Act allows the state of California to involuntarily commit those who have been convicted of certain sex crimes even after their prison sentences are complete. Involuntary commitment occurs when, upon a prisonerīs release from jail, he/she is committed to a treatment facility without consenting to treatment. A recent California Court of Appeals case, Langhorne v. Superior Court, held that the state is allowed a good faith exception to the statutory requirements to commit or recommit those who have been convicted of certain sex offenses.
The Sexually Violent Predator Act is an act that allowed the government to file a petition, while a person convicted of a sex crime is in custody of a state prison, to prevent the prisoner from release at the end of his/her sentence. Rather than being released from custody and becoming a member of the general public, the prisoner, if the governmentīs petition is granted, will be involuntarily placed in a sex treatment facility.
The Legislature intended that the procedures for obtaining a subsequent extended commitment be the same as the procedures for obtaining an initial commitment. (Butler v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1179-1180)
An express good faith exception to the custody requirement is provided by Welfare and Institutions code section 6601(a)(2), which states in pertinent part, "A petition shall not be dismissed on the basis of a later judicial or administrative determination that the individual's custody was unlawful, if the unlawful custody was the result of a good faith mistake of fact or law. This paragraph shall apply to any petition filed on or after January 1, 1996."
This means that even if the prisoner was in custody because a judge made an error in the law or a jury made a mistake of fact, and the prisoner should not have been sentenced to prison in the first place, he or she can still be involuntarily committed to a treatment facility so long as the mistakes were made in "good faith."
A person erroneously sentenced to serve prison time can still be involuntarily committed to a treatment facility so long as any mistakes in the original imprisonment were made in "good faith."
The good faith exception of Welfare and Institutions code section 6601(a)(2) was added to the SVPA in 1999 with the intent to adopt a rule similar to the holding in People v. Superior Court (Whitley) (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Whitley). In Whitley, the appellate court determined that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a petition to commit Whitley under the SVPA, although his parole had been erroneously revoked at the time the petition was filed, because the error was due to a mistake of law and there was no indication of negligent or intentional wrongdoing by the Department of Corrections.
In other words, the parolee in Whitley, was out of custody on parole when he was mistakenly taken back into prison custody. Once back in prison custody, a petition to involuntarily commit the former parolee was filed and granted. The appellate court held that this involuntary commitment, which otherwise would not have happened had his parole not been erroneously revoked, was still legal because the Department of Corrections mistake was not made in bad faith.
The good faith exception of Welfare and Institutions code section 6601(a)(2) also applies in recommitment proceedings. In Badura, the appellate court interpreted section 6601(a)(2) to imply that a petition for an initial commitment "should be dismissed if the person's unlawful custody was not the result of a good faith mistake," and concluded that "this requirement also applies to an extended commitment petition." Because an individual's unlawful custody status may be the result of a good faith mistake of fact or law, it has been held that pursuant to section 6601(a)(2) "[a]n individual is not automatically entitled to release upon the expiration of a term of commitment [under the Sexually Violent Predator Act], even if a timely petition to extend the commitment is not filed.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a sex offense, you should contact the experienced San Diego sex crimes defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have over 30 years of experience handling the complexities involved in sex crime cases. We try to provide you the best possible defense so that you can avoid prison time and thus avoid the implications of the Sexually Violent Predator Act. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website at www.wklaw.com.
The Sexually Violent Predator Act allows the state of California to involuntarily commit those who have been convicted of certain sex crimes even after their prison sentences are complete. Involuntary commitment occurs when, upon a prisonerīs release from jail, he/she is committed to a treatment facility without consenting to treatment. A recent California Court of Appeals case, Langhorne v. Superior Court, held that the state is allowed a good faith exception to the statutory requirements to commit or recommit those who have been convicted of certain sex offenses.
The Sexually Violent Predator Act is an act that allowed the government to file a petition, while a person convicted of a sex crime is in custody of a state prison, to prevent the prisoner from release at the end of his/her sentence. Rather than being released from custody and becoming a member of the general public, the prisoner, if the governmentīs petition is granted, will be involuntarily placed in a sex treatment facility.
The Legislature intended that the procedures for obtaining a subsequent extended commitment be the same as the procedures for obtaining an initial commitment. (Butler v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1179-1180)
An express good faith exception to the custody requirement is provided by Welfare and Institutions code section 6601(a)(2), which states in pertinent part, "A petition shall not be dismissed on the basis of a later judicial or administrative determination that the individual's custody was unlawful, if the unlawful custody was the result of a good faith mistake of fact or law. This paragraph shall apply to any petition filed on or after January 1, 1996."
This means that even if the prisoner was in custody because a judge made an error in the law or a jury made a mistake of fact, and the prisoner should not have been sentenced to prison in the first place, he or she can still be involuntarily committed to a treatment facility so long as the mistakes were made in "good faith."
A person erroneously sentenced to serve prison time can still be involuntarily committed to a treatment facility so long as any mistakes in the original imprisonment were made in "good faith."
The good faith exception of Welfare and Institutions code section 6601(a)(2) was added to the SVPA in 1999 with the intent to adopt a rule similar to the holding in People v. Superior Court (Whitley) (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Whitley). In Whitley, the appellate court determined that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a petition to commit Whitley under the SVPA, although his parole had been erroneously revoked at the time the petition was filed, because the error was due to a mistake of law and there was no indication of negligent or intentional wrongdoing by the Department of Corrections.
In other words, the parolee in Whitley, was out of custody on parole when he was mistakenly taken back into prison custody. Once back in prison custody, a petition to involuntarily commit the former parolee was filed and granted. The appellate court held that this involuntary commitment, which otherwise would not have happened had his parole not been erroneously revoked, was still legal because the Department of Corrections mistake was not made in bad faith.
The good faith exception of Welfare and Institutions code section 6601(a)(2) also applies in recommitment proceedings. In Badura, the appellate court interpreted section 6601(a)(2) to imply that a petition for an initial commitment "should be dismissed if the person's unlawful custody was not the result of a good faith mistake," and concluded that "this requirement also applies to an extended commitment petition." Because an individual's unlawful custody status may be the result of a good faith mistake of fact or law, it has been held that pursuant to section 6601(a)(2) "[a]n individual is not automatically entitled to release upon the expiration of a term of commitment [under the Sexually Violent Predator Act], even if a timely petition to extend the commitment is not filed.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a sex offense, you should contact the experienced San Diego sex crimes defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have over 30 years of experience handling the complexities involved in sex crime cases. We try to provide you the best possible defense so that you can avoid prison time and thus avoid the implications of the Sexually Violent Predator Act. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website at www.wklaw.com.
Print
Email
