Holmes

Holmes v. Hallinan

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 1094·68 Cal. App. 4th 1523·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 174·99 Daily Journal DAR 295·64 Cal. Comp. Cases 72
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 16, 1998A081428California4,981 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

The District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco (District Attorney) appeals the trial court’s order granting Robert Holmes’s petition for a writ of mandate and ordering the District Attorney to reinstate Holmes after the District Attorney fired him for falsifying workers’ compensation forms and dishonesty. The trial court found that the District Attorney violated Holmes’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to his termination and his right to an administrative appeal under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, and that substantial evidence did not support the District Attorney’s decision. The District Attorney contends that the trial court erred in its determinations. We agree, and reverse.

Background

Holmes was a senior investigator with the District Attorney’s office and, under state law, he is a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 830.1.) Beginning on January 13, 1997, Holmes took two weeks off from his job. Assistant Chief Investigator Charles LaMorte, Holmes’s supervisor, informed Holmes on January 13, 1997, that he had been transferred to the welfare fraud team. On January 21, 1997, Holmes’s doctor placed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.