ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



CA: Sexually Violent Predator Must Move Out Of Napa, Court Rules

[ – 3/30/21]

NAPA COUNTY, CA — As a result of a hearing Monday in San Francisco Superior Court, a convicted sexually violent predator living in Napa County must be transferred to San Francisco County, Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley announced in a news release.

Charles Leroy _____, 76, was released in September 2020 to live at 4018 E. 3rd Ave. in Napa County, where for six months he lived in close proximity to two schools and within a one-mile radius of 62 children, the Napa County District Attorney’s Office said Tuesday.

Under court order, Charles Leroy _____ must be transferred on or before April 25 to a new placement in San Francisco.

The residents of San Francisco were notified of Charles Leroy _____’s placement but there were no letters, comments or attendees, Haley said.

That was not the case when Charles Leroy _____ was released to Napa County.

“Mr. Charles Leroy _____, who has no ties to the Napa Community, was previously released to Napa County despite strong public opposition. The community was universally opposed to the placement, evidenced by over 500 letters submitted in opposition and a petition containing 793 signatures submitted by our office,” Haley said.

“Sixty-two children were identified as living within a one-mile radius of the home and two schools were in close proximity. The Napa County District Attorney’s Office attended all hearings in San Francisco Superior Court and consistently advocated that Mr. Charles Leroy _____ would be better placed in San Francisco where his crimes occurred.”

He has been committed to the California Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator since 1997, not long after the Sexually Violent Predator Act was enacted in 1996.

Napa County Deputy District Attorney Agnes Dziadur, who handled the recent case, said: “This change of heart by the San Francisco Superior Court is a testament to the commitment of our office to notify the Napa community, provide a mechanism for neighborhood voices to be amplified and the patience to move through the proper procedures to ensure that Mr. Charles Leroy _____ has an appropriate placement — outside of Napa County.”

Read the full article


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Everyone seems to want tough civil commitment laws but no one wants those designated Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) to ever actually get out and reintegrate into society locally as responsible citizens.

This shows how the public wants SVPs (and all registrants) to go away forever but the constitution won’t let them do that 100%. Therefore, they send the district attorney to yell “Not In My Backyard” at the hearings to keep the nice, rich, white neighborhood clean of “sex offenders”.

ACSOL successfully got rid of residency restrictions throughout California, but it would be a far tougher fight to deal extreme cases like SVPs.

With more resources ACSOL can do even more to fight the prejudice against all registrants, so let’s click that Donate button and make more change happen!

Let us be honest! SVP laws were enacted and intended to re-incarcerate.
BIG PERIOD! In that sense a pure loyalty ” to the people” play by politicians.

That stated, a question of whether we can stop creating or rearing men who embrace violence to get their needs met remains. It seems our society somehow creates some real extreme humans of many ilks.
How many 500+ lbs. individuals are there, for example? IMO garbage in equates to garbage out.

ACSOL the blog update looks and works nicely.

@ Tim in WI: You mention “violent” men and, you are too correct that our society creates them. Let me explain exactly what I mean by that.
I was convicted in Florida. Florida “society” (i.e., lawmakers) decided that any physical contact can be considered “violent”. Kissing someone or hugging someone or squirting them with a squirt gun (no euphemism or metaphor intended) in Florida can be charged as violent assault. I don’t know enough about California’s SVP distinction, but if it’s anything like Florida’s, I have to wonder how truly “violent” is this individual and how dangerous is he now, especially at his age??

I encourage people to go to Google Maps and take a look at where the property in Napa, California is located. Would one really be able to find any place less congested or located near fewer children in San Francisco county?? And, forgive my ageism (I am a Senior too), but he’s 76 years old, for goodness sake! Let him live in peace!

Here the phrase “change of heart” actually means “bowed to democratic manipulation”. The national district attorneys association knows they can always pull that trick out when it comes to sex offenders. It’s always about wording and public perception. Judges can’t get these prosecutor-in-chiefs to play a fair game, and it’s going to get worse with Kamocalypse looming in the shadows serving as their “man on the inside”.

Well won’t this decision now lay ground work for other judges to be able to just “banish” people from entire communities/counties. There is no limit as to the number of letters objecting to this person living in the community as to if the person must relocate. Meaning if there were only 500 letters instead of 501 letters then the court would be compelled to act and “banish” this person. So now an arbitrary number of letters will suffice to banish someone.

62 children lived within a 1 mile radius – really?! So how many children within a 1 miles radius is acceptable so there are no complaints – zero more than likely – remember “if it saves just one child”. Oh, but what would happen if one child moved into the area of 1 mile radius, he would have to move again.

In “close proximity” to two schools. What is the definition of “proximity”? Well I guess the new residency restrictions that will now start to come out instead of being “can not live within 1,000 feet of a school or playground” the words “1,000 feet” will be replaced with “close proximity” having now a open undefined amount of feet/miles. I did not see in the article what is the distances of the two schools – just the term close proximity.

I guess the judge felt compelled to make this ruling based on the simple fact of “CMA” (cover my a$$).

I’m a bit overwhelmed today. I applied for a COR last year. I was granted a COR today, but not required to attend court. LA County. I’ve contacted the (general law firm that specializes in expungements/COR). He seemed lost. He has a lawyer representing me in LA. I have a PC 243.3A – 17b, expunged and now COR? Do I still have to register? From what I’ve read, I had until July 1st and my plea is an expunged misdemeanor?


congratulations on the CoR!

my experience was it took less then 2 weeks to receive a copy of the court ruling.

On the CoR paperwork there is box about terminating registration. That said even if the box is checked you still have to wait until you hear from the CA DoJ about them having received the order from the judge. All told it took me about 2 months from the granting of the CoR until I received notice from the DoJ.

hope you get good news.

I noted that my case is eligible and should be automatic. The SB 384 took affect Jan 1st and if you read SB in detail, I had until July 1st to obtain relief. See attached

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x