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.”
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!
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?
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