Damiani v. Albert

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment denying his application for a writ of mandate to compel respondents to reinstate him to a position he had formerly held as deputy sheriff of Los Angeles County, petitioner

*

appeals.

Facts

•. Petitioner, a deputy sheriff of Los Angeles County, ■was charged with filing a report he knew to be false stating that his superior officer, Sergeant Mallette, was intoxicated when serving as a uniformed officer at a junior high school dance on October 15, 1954. It was also charged that he violated rules of the sheriff’s office requiring official communications to be sent through the 1 ‘chain of command,” and that he had previously been suspended twice for disciplinary reasons.

Petitioner was accordingly discharged for cause on November 18, 1954. He requested a hearing before respondent county civil service commission, which, after a formal hearing, sustained the discharge. He then petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate, which was denied.

Questions: First.

Was there substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the commission and the trial court that petitioner (a) filed a false report, which he knew to be false, charging that his superior officer was intoxicated when serving as a uniformed officer at a junior high school dance on

[17]

October 15, 195i, and (b) violated the rules of the sheriff’s office requiring that official communications be sent through the chain of command?

Yes.

On an application for a writ of mandate to review an order of a local quasi-judicial body such as the commission in the present case, the trial court does not have the right to judge the intrinsic value of the evidence or to weigh it. The power of the court is confined to whether there was substantial evidence before the commission to support its findings.

(Fascination, Inc.

v.

Hoover,