DAMIANI v. ALBERT (1956)

This is an appeal from the judgment.

As recited in respondents' brief, ‘The Appellant, Louis Damiani, was a Deputy Sheriff of Los Angeles County who was discharged for cause on November 18, 1954. He requested a hearing before the County Civil Service Commission, one of the Respondents herein. A formal hearing was held on December 22 and 23, 1954 and the Commission sustained the discharge. Damiani petitioned the Superior Court for a Writ of Mandate, which was denied, and the appeal is from such denial.

‘Appellant 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, October 15, 1954. It was also charged that he violated rules of the Sheriff's Office requiring official communications to be sent through the chain of command and that he had been suspended twice for disciplinary reasons.’

As pointed out by appellant, ‘The petitioner was charged with violating Section 1205 of the Manual of Policy and Ethics of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles in that allegedly on or about October 30, 1954, without going through channels petitioner communicated in writing directly with Captain Mullison of the Sheriff's Emergency Reserve that a member of the Emergency Reserve, Deputy Weberg, was unfit and unqualified to serve as a member of this Department.’ Also that, ‘Petitioner was charged with violation of Sections 1407, 1431, 1444 and 1502 of the Manual of Policy and Ethics, in that he allegedly, on or about October 25, 1954, reported in writing that one Sergeant Byron A. Mallette was intoxicated while off duty but working on an approved outside assignment as a uniformed officer.’

Although appellant's contentions are not without merit they are highly technical. As respondent points out, ‘It is not the function of the appellate court to weigh the evidence before the Superior Court, nor may the Superior Court weigh the evidence before the Civil Service Commission. Neither court may exercise an independent judgment on the evidence. Technically the District Court of Appeal considers whether the decision of the Superior Court is supported by substantial evidence, and the Superior Court determines whether the findings of the Civil Service Commission were supported by substantial evidence. (Moran v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301 [196 P.2d 20].)’ Incidentally, the findings and conclusions of the trial judge are not included as part of the record on appeal. And, of course, the court may not take judicial notice of county ordinances, rules and regulations of the Sheriff's Office or the Civil Service Commission.

The presumption applies that the findings and conclusions support the judgment. It also must be assumed that the findings and conclusions of the Civil Service Commission are supported by the evidence. In the light of the record, the judgment must be and is affirmed.

DORAN, Justice.

WHITE, P. J., and FOURT, J., concur.