Counties Cannot Bar Singleton, Appeal Court Says

A state appeals court late Friday overturned court orders barring parole authorities from releasing rapist Lawrence Singleton in two Northern California counties and said that San Diego County must be the first parole site considered.

Acting with unusual speed in a case involving Contra Costa County and San Francisco, the three-member First District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that individual counties have no power to “prevent the return of undesirable parolees to their respective jurisdictions,” adding that the law governing parole would be “seriously undermined” if local governments were allowed to bar parolees.

“It cannot be overstated that as an ordered and democratic society,” the court continued, “we live under a system of laws which must be fairly applied and justly administered.”

The ruling leaves state authorities free to place Singleton where they see fit. But Department of Corrections spokesman Robert Gore said after the ruling that there will not be an immediate decision.

“There will be no rush. He will be kept in temporary locations over the weekend,” Gore said, adding a decision on his permanent placement will be made next week.

An Appeal Planned

San Francisco officials said they would appeal to the state Supreme Court. San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor, in a Friday night press conference, said the city would immediately file a motion for a temporary restraining order exempting San Diego from consideration.

“We should not have to take a convicted rapist as a member of our community just because we accepted a change of venue and held his trial here,” O’Connor said.

Corrections officials have previously said they were reluctant to place Singleton in San Diego County--where he was tried on a change of venue--or any other place in Southern California because his lack of family ties or familiarity with the area would make a successful parole more difficult. Singleton has never been a permanent resident of Southern California.

Singleton’s parole on April 25 from the California Men’s Colony at San Luis Obispo triggered a wave of protests across the state, as one local government after another passed resolutions and filed suits to block his possible release in their jurisdiction.

Singleton Cooperative

Unable to find a locale for his parole, the state has moved him from one motel to another under 24-hour guard by three parole agents. On at least two occasions, word was leaked by local officials to the press that he was in town, forcing parole agents to whisk him away. Singleton has been described as cooperative and somewhat frightened during his odyssey.

The case stirred public outrage largely because of the viciousness of the crime. In 1978, Singleton raped Mary Vincent, then 15, chopped off her arms with an ax and left her to die. The following year he was tried, convicted and sentenced to the maximum 14-year prison term. He was confined slightly more than eight years under a program that gives an inmate time off his sentence if he participates in a prison work program.

The issue of where he would be paroled ended up in court when the state Department of Corrections announced plans to place him in Contra Costa County, where he was last believed to have a residence. Officials there filed suit, and a local judge issued a court order blocking the parole. When Corrections officials told the San Francisco Police Department that Singleton was going to be placed in that city temporarily, Mayor Dianne Feinstein won a similar court order.

As Singleton was moved about the state, officials in San Diego, San Mateo, Napa, Alameda, Mendocino and Santa Clara counties also threatened to file suits blocking his parole.

The state appealed the Contra Costa and San Francisco rulings. Taking less than five days to reach its decision, the Court of Appeal sided with the Department of Corrections. The unsigned opinion was issued by Presiding Justice John Racanelli and Justices William Newsom and John Holmdahl.

‘Eviscerate’ the Law

“The problems attendant upon placement of parolees involve matters of statewide interest and concern,” the court said. To allow counties to exercise veto power over paroles would “eviscerate” the law, the justices ruled.

The court said state officials’ apparent intention to place Singleton in Contra Costa County, without stating reasons for deciding not to place him in San Diego County, was “palpably erroneous.”

The court said San Diego County must be the first place considered as a parole site because Singleton was tried there. The case was transferred to San Diego because of heavy pretrial publicity in Stanislaus County, where the crime occurred. But the justices did not prohibit the state from deciding, based on legal standards, that any county would be a preferable location.

Under the law, state Department of Corrections officials can consider such factors as the safety of the parolee and the public, family ties, job programs and public concern in deciding to place the parolee in some place other than the county of sentencing.

San Diego Mayor O’Connor said late Friday that she had instructed the city’s attorneys “to spend the entire weekend” preparing an appeal in the event that the city’s request for a restraining order is denied.

“He has never been a member of our community and should not be made one now,” she said. “The only time he has ever spent in San Diego has been spent in prison.”

O’Connor predicted that Friday’s ruling would set a dangerous precedent: “If that is the case, there is not a city in this state that would agree to a change of venue.”

In San Francisco, City Atty. Louise Renne was angered by the ruling. “Damned right,” she said when asked if she would appeal.

Contra Costa County officials could not be reached for comment.

Times staff writer Janny Scott in San Diego contributed to this story.