Page 1
C.A. Overturns Three-Day Suspension of LASC Clerk
Disciplinary Action Was Justified Where Error Caused Defendant to Serve Six Extra Days in Custody, Presiding Justice Gonzalo Martinez Says, but Penalty Was Too Steep Under the Circumstances
By Kimber Cooley, Staff Writer
Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that a Los Angeles Superior Court clerk was properly subject to disciplinary action due to an error on a commitment order resulting in a criminal defendant being detained for six days beyond her sentence, but the three-day suspension imposed on her was too steep where she asked the judge to confirm the numbers before entering them and self-reported the error upon discovering it.
Presiding Justice Gonzalo C. Martinez authored the unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday, affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment by then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff (now an arbitrator/mediator). The panel directed a reconsideration on remand of “what penalty, if any, is justified under the circumstances.”
Appealing the suspension by the court was Joy Alailima-Millon, a judicial assistant for Los Angeles County since 1990 who has been assigned to the Inglewood courtroom of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victor Wright for the past eight or nine years.
Commitment Order Error
On Feb. 2, 2017, Wright sentenced defendant Angelita Sombrano to 16 months in state prison, with pre-sentencing credits of 490 days. Alailima-Millon prepared a commitment order for “sixteen (16) months with credit for 490 days.”
After the commitment order, Sombrano was returned to custody. The minute order erroneously stated that Sombrano was released.
The parties do not dispute that 16 months is less than 490 days (486.667 days, taking a month to average 30.436875 days) and that Sombrano should have been released on the day of her sentencing. On Feb. 7, Sombrano’s attorney, Michael Curtis, brought the mistake to the attention of the court and the inmate was released the following day.
Alailima-Millon self-reported the situation to court operations manager Gayna Squalls.
During her employment with the court, Alailima-Millon generally received positive performance reviews but did suffer a one-day suspension in 2014 for failing to effectuate the recall of a bench warrant, which led to an erroneous arrest.
Following administrative proceedings including an arbitration, Beckloff on Dec. 5, 2022, denied writ relief, finding that the seriousness of the consequences of the error—Sombrano’s deprivation of liberty for six days—and Alailima-Millon’s prior suspension for a similar mistake justified the suspension.
Martinez noted that a party challenging an administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the findings supporting the determination are contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Applying that standard, the jurist said:
“We conclude the record contains substantial evidence to support the superior court’s conclusion that the weight of the evidence supported the hearing officer’s finding that LASC had cause to discipline Alailima-Millon.”
He continued:
“The superior court found, and substantial evidence supports, that Alailima-Millon had a duty to prepare the proper commitment orders and to inquire of the court if there is any uncertainty.”
The justice noted that the Manual of Procedure for Superior Court Clerks/Judicial Assistants sets forth:
“The Judicial Assistant is responsible for preparing a commitment whenever the defendant is ordered to serve time…, or if the defendant has time remaining to be served. A release should be issued when an in custody defendant has been sentenced to serve a period of time that is equal to or less than the amount of pre-sentence custody credits as ordered by the Court.”
‘Serious’ Error
Martinez wrote that Alailima-Millon’s error “was serious,” resulting in “a significant infringement of liberty” but said that this “is not the end of our analysis,” declaring:
“The arbitrator justified the penalty imposed based on LASC’s argument that Alailima-Millon ‘fail[ed] to acknowledge any responsibility for the error’ and that this was ‘a second custody paperwork error.’ Neither justification withstands scrutiny. The first conflates Alailima-Millon’s exercise of her right to challenge the discipline and penalty imposed through the grievance, arbitration, and litigation process with abnegation of responsibility.”
The justice opined:
“But the evidence before the arbitrator demonstrated that after defense counsel notified her of the error, she brought the court file to Judge Wright, processed a release order for Sombrano, and then self-reported the situation to LASC management….The concerns Alailima-Millon raised, including that three legal professionals (the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge) failed to identify that Sombrano should have been released at the hearing and that Judge Wright did not require her to calculate sentence credits as part of her job duties, were reasonable.”
He added:
“In addition, there was no substantial evidence suggesting a likelihood of recurrence. The arbitrator conflated the error in this case with one where Alailima-Millon previously failed to recall a bench warrant in 2014….That failure to follow a clear instruction to recall a bench warrant is fundamentally different than what the arbitrator herself recognized as ‘the ambiguous circumstances that arose in this case.’ ”
Martinez said that “[e]ven applying this deferential standard, we conclude that a three-day suspension was an abuse of discretion as a penalty for Alailima-Millon’s error.”
The case is Alailima-Millon v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, B326373.
Attorneys on appeal were Dana S. Martinez and Vanessa C. Wright of the Glendale firm of Bush Gottlieb for Alailima-Millon (and for her union, Local 575 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and Jay G. Trinnaman, Jorge J. Luna and Mae G. Alberto of the Pasadena firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo for the court.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company