SANTA CRUZ — A state appellate court has overturned the conditional placement of a sexually violent predator in a rural Bonny Doon neighborhood.

In a majority ruling dated Friday, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District found that Michael Cheek, who committed two violent rapes in the 1980s in Santa Cruz and Contra Costa counties, could not be placed in the proposed home because it is within a quarter-mile of a school.

“That ruling was a victory for parents’ rights to educate their children in the way they see fit,” Santa Cruz County Assistant District Attorney Alex Byers said Tuesday. “It was a victory for public safety for our county, specifically for the citizens of Bonny Doon that have this situation thrust upon them.”

The decision noted that a private home school on the same road as Cheek’s future apartment appeared to have been created after neighbors were alerted of Cheek’s pending placement. That issue, however, was not enough to prevent the justices from overruling Cheek’s placement at a nearby home, however, because the statute does not require the school to have been operating for any particular time, according to the ruling.

A sexually violent predator, by state definition, is a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to others.

On Tuesday, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Syda Cogliati said she planned to maintain a hold on the Iris Lane rental property while legal proceedings continue, as the appellate decision would not be finalized until after a 30-day period had lapsed. Defense attorney Stephen Prekoski, representing Cheek, said that it was unclear whether he would use that time period to seek an appellate rehearing of the case, or to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

Cogliati, who had made the initial ruling freeing Cheek to be placed in Bonny Doon in November 2021, also questioned whether the home school still existed and suggested a hearing would be needed to verify the facility’s continuing existence may be in the future.

Prekoski also told the court that he planned to refile a petition for his client to be conditionally released without a set location, considered a “transient release.” Cogliati denied Prekoski’s earlier bid for such an allowance in October. Prekoski, however, said that “transient release is the obvious option, given the egregious amount of due process violations that Mr. Cheek continues to suffer.”

On a parallel track, the Department of State Hospitals and its contractor Liberty Healthcare Corp. continued to seek alternative housing options for Cheek while the appellate case was moving forward. Cogliati on Tuesday agreed to move forward in exploring a home placement at an unspecified Butte County address. The exact site location will not be publicized until certain groundwork and notifications have been made, she said. Byers requested leave to notify the Butte County District Attorney’s and Sheriff’s offices ahead of the official notice.

“I would like for the court to include a gag order until the address becomes public,” Prekoski said. “My experience in past counties has been that the sheriff engages in scare tactics with the neighbors of the parcel of property that is reserved, goes out there, publishes Mr. Cheek’s private medical information and freaks out the neighbors.”

Cogliati agreed, ordering those Butte County offices not to publicly disclose the address of the potential Butte County site ahead of the standard public notice.

Cheek’s next local hearing was set for 9 a.m. March 6.