Home › News › Conejo Valley
240-day sentence given for underage sex case
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Conejo ValleyA judge Thursday sentenced a 25-year-old man to 240 days in jail for an incident in which he drove to Thousand Oaks believing he was going to have sex with a 13-year-old girl he met on the Internet.
Superior Court Judge Bruce Clark also sentenced Robert Callahan to three years of probation. Callahan pleaded guilty to a felony charge of luring.
Callahan, of Arleta, appeared in court with his lawyer, Adam Pearlman, who told the judge that his client didn't have a criminal record and accepted responsibility early in the case.
Pearlman said Callahan had no "abnormal fixation history," and the computer seized from Callahan's home didn't contain any child pornography.
The computer showed no evidence that Callahan had ever gone into chat rooms that cater to minors, said Pearlman.
Pearlman also noted that the judge received many letters of support from people saying that Callahan is well-respected in the community.
"The fact is that he is a role model to many of them," Pearlman told the judge.
Outside the courtroom, prosecutor Marc Leventhal said Callahan found and started chatting with someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl. Callahan then began transmitting nude photographs of himself via e-mail to the supposed girl, according to Leventhal.
Leventhal said Callahan was actually communicating with an adult volunteer who regularly patrols the Web to protect minors. The volunteer contacted police, who began an investigation. An officer resumed e-mail communications with Callahan using the 13-year-old girl ruse.
When Callahan drove Nov. 2, 2006, to a gated community in Thousand Oaks to meet the supposed girl, he was arrested, said Leventhal.
Leventhal said people who troll the Internet searching for minors could be in for a rude awakening in Ventura County.
"In Ventura County, we come down extremely hard on that," said Leventhal. "The sheriff's (deputies) are out there patrolling, trying to keep the Internet safe so that adults and kids can use it."
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 14, 2007 at 5:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very true about the denial.....Most parents are fast to jump on that and say NOT my kid! Well wake up!
Sylar, Unless its prison time I doubt anything much will happen. But I hope he pays the price eventually! Sick creep !
Posted by godslove1 on July 14, 2007 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That is just WRONG!!! He knew what he was doing when he was doing it. I don't care if he was a pillar to the community nor do I care what color he is!! I can not believe this judge only gave this creep less than a year in county jail. This just nauseates me in a way that I can not describe!!!
Posted by socalcandyman on July 14, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I strongly support that he be punish to the full extent of the law. By him starting to chat on the internet with a minor, this will turn in a snowball effect, the problem will get bigger with time if he's not controlled/monitored.
On a side note, where would the government deport him to? Arleta is in in Los Angeles county. Correct me if I am wrong, isn't the last name of Callahan of Irish origin?
Posted by Jacksprat on July 14, 2007 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again something wrong in the sentence. He deserved al lot more, people with lesser crime get more. We need to look were the judges get the sentence. the man has a problem, to travel all that way for sex show there is a problem. He did not have children sex on the computer that was suppose to be his. Something is wrong here, He was surfing the web for underage girls to have sex with, where did he get started? I think there is a lot more than meets the eye here.
Posted by luv2sail on July 14, 2007 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Let em loose Bruce" rides again.
I should come as little surprise that anyone in front of this judge will receive a lighter than normal sentence.
With any luck we can vote him off the bench on the next election.
To review his cases and sentences will bring laughter, sad that it is true.
Posted by sog55 on July 14, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
a pillar of community? nice commentary about thousand oaks.how can that judge look his own children in their eyes?
Posted by Common_Sense on July 14, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At least 180 day Clark added an additional 33% for a child predator.
Posted by rebel123 on July 14, 2007 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Deport him? To where, exactly....back to Arleta? Clearly this guy is a sicko, but when it comes to punishments for crimes, there is a very strong case to be made for a difference between intent to do something and actually doing it. He "thought" he was going to meet a 13 year old for sex. He in fact, did not have sex with a 13 year old and there is no way anybody can assume, suggest, or prove that sex would have transpired had there been a 13 year old waiting for him. Hence the rather light sentence. He's a disgusting creep but unfortunately, there's really not a lot more we can do within the confines of the law. It is already really close to entrapment......which I'm all for when it comes to this sort of depraved animal.
Posted by AskingQuestions on July 14, 2007 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SoCal and Rebel:
don't you recognize sarcasm?
SYLMAR'S second line: "For some people on this board that seems to be their answer for EVERYTHING...."
Just so there is no misunderstanding: child predators come in all colors, shapes, sizes, gender, etc. etc.
Posted by sog55 on July 14, 2007 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
allow me to correct myself. nice commentary about arleta. that attorney should be ashamed of himself for even suggesting that because he is a role model to anyone that this kind of behavior should be excused? what is the maximum sentence for this crime? was it imposed? if it wasn't why not?rebel,what do you think he went there for? his attorney said he had no abnormal fixation history. what is his definition of abnormal?
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 15, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it a felony to send porn material to someone they believe is a minor through the internet? Well on to Catch a Predator it is......... And those creeps get two to eight years prison all the time.
This story makes me sick. Did they even bother to check to see how old the computer was? I suspect he tossed out the old one and just got a new one ! (Maybe) but a good assumption. This Judge needs to be thrown off the bench !!!!! This predator needs to spend at least four years in prison !!!!!
Posted by narc121 on July 22, 2007 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anna, the punishment for these kind of sex crimes is different in all states. There is no "standard" punishment.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.