In People v. Hubbart (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1202, the defendant was released from prison in 1993, but "about a month and a half after his release, his parole was revoked for psychiatric treatment, pursuant to title 15, California Code of Regulations, section 2616, former subdivision (a)(7). The sexually violent predator petition was filed while he was in prison pursuant to that parole revocation, on January 2, 1996." (Hubbart, at pp. 1213-1214.) In 1998, in Terhune v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 864, an appellate court invalidated the regulation used to justify the revocation of Hubbart's parole. (People v. Hubbart, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1227.) In 2000, Hubbart was committed as a sexually violent predator. (Id. at p. 1216.) On appeal from the order of commitment, in response to Hubbart's argument that his commitment was invalid because he was not in lawful custody at the time the commitment petition was filed, the appellate court noted that at the time his parole was revoked under the authority of the regulation later invalidated in Terhune "no judicial or administrative decision had addressed the validity of that regulation. ... Thus, defendant has made no showing that his parole was revoked in bad faith." (Hubbart, at p. 1229.) The court later reiterated that "the error resulted from a mistake of law. ... Corrections relied on a regulation that was apparently valid: at the time, there was no controlling judicial decision directly on point. The regulation was invalidated only after the petition for commitment was filed. There is no evidence of any negligence or intentional wrongdoing here." (Ibid.)