Bonome v. City of Riverside
10 Cal. App. 5th 14
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Camillo Bonome, a Riverside police officer since 1995, was investigated for mishandling a June 2012 child sexual‑abuse matter; a Memorandum of Finding sustained that he failed to properly investigate and prepare reports.
- Chief Diaz recommended termination; Bonome received a Notice of Intent to Impose Discipline (Skelly notice) in May 2013.
- While termination proceedings were pending, Bonome applied for and was granted CalPERS industrial disability retirement (effective August 2, 2013), halting termination proceedings.
- Bonome requested a retirement identification badge with a CCW endorsement; the City denied the endorsement, concluding he was not “honorably retired” under Penal Code § 16690 because he retired in lieu of termination.
- Bonome filed a writ of mandate seeking either issuance of the CCW endorsement or, if denied, a statutory “good cause” hearing under the Penal Code; the trial court granted the writ. The City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonome is “honorably retired” under Penal Code § 16690 and thus entitled to presumptive CCW endorsement | Bonome: § 16690’s plain text defines honorably retired to include those who accepted service or disability retirement; only service retirement accepted in lieu of termination is excluded, so his disability retirement qualifies | City/Chief Diaz: Legislative history shows the Legislature intended to exclude anyone who retired (service or disability) in lieu of termination; plain reading yields absurd result and history should control | Court: Statute’s plain language is clear—disability retirees are included; Bonome is “honorably retired” for purpose of entitlement to CCW endorsement (subject to good‑cause denial) |
| Whether court may consult legislative history to avoid an asserted absurd result | Bonome: no need—statute is unambiguous; disability retirement cannot be negotiated to avoid termination | City/Chief Diaz: statute’s plain meaning produces absurd result; legislative history of predecessor § 12027 (AB 578) shows broader exclusion was intended | Court: No absurdity warranting departure from plain meaning; legislative materials do not clearly show intent to exclude disability retirees; court declines to rewrite statute |
| If not automatically entitled to endorsement, whether Bonome is entitled to a good‑cause hearing before denial | Bonome: if endorsement may be denied for cause, statute entitles him to a good‑cause hearing (§ 26310) | City/Chief Diaz: denial is proper because he retired in lieu of termination; no entitlement | Court: City may deny endorsement only for good cause; if denied, Bonome is entitled to a statutory good‑cause hearing |
| Standard of review for statutory interpretation on appeal | Not contested by parties; statutory interpretation reviewed de novo | N/A | Court applies de novo review and relies on plain‑meaning rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Nolan v. City of Anaheim, 33 Cal.4th 335 (use statutory text first; clear language controls)
- Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal.4th 1164 (presume Legislature meant what it wrote when language unambiguous)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board, 8 Cal.4th 333 (statutory text is best evidence of legislative intent)
- MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 1076 (do not depart from plain meaning to avoid supposed absurd results unless clearly warranted)
- Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal.3d 194 (employee right to pre‑discipline response)