Santa Ana U. Sch. Dist. v. Com. on Professional Competence
In this case, we review the denial of a petition for writ of mandate filed by Santa Ana Unified School District (the District), seeking to overturn the decision of the Commission of Professional Competence regarding one of the District’s counselors, Anthony Espinosa. The District accused Espinosa, a counselor at Segerstrom High School, of immoral behavior with two female students, V. and C., and sought to suspend and dismiss him under Education Code section 44934.[1] Espinosa demanded and had a hearing before an administrative law judge and two panel members, both of whom were counselors.
The Commission unanimously found the District’s charges against Espinosa unproven and ordered them dismissed. The District then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court, which petition was denied. The District has appealed the denial of its petition to this court, asserting that it did not get a fair trial before the Commission and that the trial court used the wrong standard of review when it denied the petition. It also asserts substantial evidence did not support the Commission’s decision.
We affirm. The trial court clearly used the correct standard of review, independent judgment, when it examined the administrative record, giving due weight to the Commission’s findings. The District has waived its argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence – usually a losing proposition on appeal anyway – by preparing a one-sided recitation of the facts in its opening brief. And we conclude that the District’s criticisms of the way the administrative law judge conducted the hearing lack merit. The trial court correctly upheld the Commission’s decision.
Comments on Santa Ana U. Sch. Dist. v. Com. on Professional Competence