News

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 09 January 2012

LAKEPORT, Calif. – A judge has rejected a plea agreement reached last month in which a former deputy sheriff was to receive a three-month jail sentence for having a yearlong sexual relationship with a young teenage girl.

Judge Andrew Blum rejected the deal in the sexual abuse case against 39-year-old Derik Dion Navarro, who had reached the deal with the California Attorney General’s Office in which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony unlawful intercourse with a child under age 16.

The alleged victim, now 21 years old, wept as Blum said he had no choice but to either accept the agreement or reject it, and he was choosing the latter.

“It grieves me to have to make this decision,” he said, looking toward the young woman and her family. “Trust me, I have two daughters about your age. This is not easy for me to do.”

The young woman and her family were too distraught to speak to a reporter after the hearing's conclusion.

The plea agreement – reached on Dec. 7, just as Navarro’s trial was set to start – called for three months in jail, three years’ formal probation and no requirement to register as a sex offender.

Navarro originally was facing 20 counts related to the case, with counts including committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor, sodomy and having sex with a minor under age 16. Those original counts were scaled back to 16, 15 of which were to be dropped as a result of the agreement.

He had allegedly had sex with the young woman beginning when she was 14 years old, from May 2005 to May 2006.

Navarro worked as a deputy sheriff from 2002 to 2007. He was fired in April 2007 following the conclusion of an investigation into the charges. His arrest came a week after his firing.

District Attorney Don Anderson had represented Navarro in an employment-related matter at one time and so the case was handed over to the Attorney General's Office early last year because of that conflict of interest.

The Attorney General's Office, working with the alleged victim, reached the agreement with Navarro, a decision which raised an outcry among many community members because of its leniency.

Several letters were submitted to the court about the case, which both Senior Assistant Attorney General Dave Druliner and Navarro's attorney, Mitch Hauptman, asked not to be included in the record.

However, Hauptman requested that one letter be listed as a court exhibit.

The one in question was from the the Lake County Sheriff's Office. Blum said in court that it had appeared in a sealed envelope on his desk Monday morning.

Blum told the court that all such communications are to be routed through his secretary, who screens them. That's because ex parte communications with the judge in regard to cases are strictly forbidden.

He said he had his secretary look at it, and she confirmed it was for a pending case. Blum said he didn't read it, adding he was not putting that information on the record to embarrass anyone.

Sitting in the audience during the case's hearing was Sheriff Frank Rivero, dressed in plain clothes with a handgun tucked into the back of his waistband. Rivero last month approached the Attorney General's Office also to argue against the plea agreement.

After Hauptman asked that the letter be marked as a court exhibit, Blum reiterated that he had not seen the letter, prompting Hauptman to reply, “That's as it should be.”

Family asks for closure

On behalf of the alleged victim and her family, Druliner read a letter to the court.

“We have walked through a long, hard five-year process,” the letter stated.

The family said that no amount of punishment for Navarro could ever fix what had been done, but that for them the most important outcome was Navarro's admission of guilt and that he would never again wear a badge, which they felt would keep the public safe from him.

As court dates have come and gone, “Our daughter has relived this over and over and over again,” the letter said, noting that they had wanted many times to give up, which they believed was Navarro's wish.

While they recognized that some people in the community felt the plea agreement was a “travesty,” the family asked for the community's respect of their need for closure.

Druliner told the court that some cases are so controversial that they split communities. “I would submit this is one of those cases.”

Like the alleged victim and her family, Druliner held that Navarro's guilty plea to the charge should help settle the controversy and allow the young woman and her family their much-desired closure.

He said the alleged victim now has a 4 year old son, is employed and is, “in all respects, I would submit, a remarkable young lady.”

Druliner said the case has been in the system for more than five years. “And she has put up with that. Not just put up with it but lived through it.”

While being assailed personally and within the justice system, she stood strong and endured a difficult time, Druliner said.

“I know that she wants closure today on this case,” Druliner said. “I submit to this court that she's deserved that, she's earned that.”

He agreed that the plea agreement was unusual. “The case is unusual,” he added.

Because of that, and on the young woman’s behalf, he asked for the court to honor the agreement. “Under the circumstances it is appropriate.”

Hauptman said he had no comments to offer at that point.

In considering his decision, Blum said that because there was a sentencing agreement between the prosecution and defense, “I have limited options.”

He couldn't choose which sentence length to offer or address any of the details. His only option, he said, was either to accept it or reject it. “There's no middle ground.”

Blum agreed that the case was unusual, mostly due to its age.

“The longevity of it is very unfortunate,” he said, pointing out that it had begun about five years ago, before he had even become a judge.

He had considered the case history, pointing out that there had been five changes of defense attorneys and two prosecuting agencies, all of which had resulted in continuances.

Very few felonies get nearly so old in the system, he said, adding that his heart went out to the alleged victim.

He said the question before him was whether 120 days in custody for Navarro was a fair and appropriate sentence, not whether the alleged victim should have closure.

“She should have had closure years ago,” Blum said.

The probation report prepared for the Monday morning hearing urged Blum against accepting the deal. He said it laid out the case in detail, explaining how Navarro is alleged to have violated a position of trust in the community to take advantage of “a particularly vulnerable victim” who was 14 at the time the alleged crimes began taking place.

Blum said there was no way that he could say with good conscience that 120 days in jail was enough time for Navarro.

“I've been handing out sentences all morning,” said Blum, pointing to the full docket of arraignments and sentencings he already had handled by that time. “None is as lenient as that,” he said, adding that many of the cases were for lesser crimes.

“I have to reject this agreement,” he said. He said that, as a result, Navarro could withdraw his guilty plea, which Hauptman promptly did on Navarro’s behalf.

Blum ordered Navarro to stand trial on all 16 counts related to the case, and said he wanted the case set for trial as soon as possible, as he didn't want to delay it any further.

“And let me make this much clear,” Blum said. “I take pleas all the time. Lots of them.”

In those cases, he can only consider what is presented in court. As a result he must avoid knowledge of community opinions, articles and other information that may affect his decision.

“Anything that's been said out there, I'm unaware of it. And I will remain unaware of it, purposefully,” he said.

Blum said he realized he was putting the victim through more trauma. He said the case was a travesty, and he didn't want it to end with a double travesty with a “ridiculously lenient sentence” on top of a case that had taken a long time to work through the courts.

With that said, however, Blum stated that by Navarro retracting his guilty plea, he is considered an innocent man as the case moves forward, and is to be treated as such.

Blum ordered the attorneys and Navarro to return to his courtroom at 8:15 a.m. next Tuesday, Jan. 17, to set the trial date.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .