Fleming v. Superior Court
10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5894
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Fleming, former superintendent of Capistrano Unified School District, was indicted on counts including misappropriation of public moneys under Penal Code §424 for authorizing list compilations.
- Two lists were created: the first from recall supporters’ emails; the second from petition circulators’ signatures obtained from the registrar.
- Staff compiled the lists using public resources, including access to the Aeries pupil database, and the work was described as ‘informing’ or ‘educating’ recall supporters.
- Counts 2 and 3 (Education Code §7054 and Penal Code §182 conspiracy) were dismissed by the trial court; Count 1 remained before the appellate court.
- The appellate court’s decision focuses on whether Fleming acted within lawful authority as superintendent and whether the statutory elements were met for each count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fleming acted within lawful authority under §424 | Fleming’s research/collection of lists used public resources for improper purpose. | Fleming had authority to research district issues and compile lists to understand discontent. | Count 1 dismissed? No, court held within authority; list creation was lawful. |
| Whether §7054 was violated by using district resources to urge recall | First list used to urge or influence recall supporters. | Nascent recall and internal lists not ‘urging’ or campaign activity; informational/explanatory in nature. | Count 2 dismissed; no §7054 violation. |
| Whether the conspiracy charge under §182(a)(5) lies | Agreement to use resources to further personal goals obstructs justice. | No criminal objective; actions were within lawful authority and not obstructive. | Count 3 dismissed; no conspiracy to obstruct justice. |
| Whether §1510 delay bar affects review of §995 motion | Delay prejudiced Fleming; motion timely under exceptions. | Unknown or lack of opportunity to raise issues; transcripts caused delay. | Section 1510 bar not applicable; motion reviewed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 149 Cal.App.4th 1424 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (superintendent has official duty to communicate with the public about district concerns)
- Capo for Better Representation v. Kelley, 158 Cal.App.4th 1455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (public resources violated under electioneering rules when misused during recall context)
- Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 49 (Cal. 1950) (conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice—necessitates illegal objective; not mere agreement)
- Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal.3d 206 (Cal. 1976) (distinguishes informational from campaign expenditures under public funds)
- Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2009) (public funds for informational vs. campaign activities; contextual framework for Stanson)
- San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist., 46 Cal.4th 822 (Cal. 2009) (section 7054 analyzed in context of school information vs. campaign materials)
- DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara, 181 Cal.App.4th 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (public resources and informational vs. campaign activities; relation to 8314/54964 framework)
- Santa Barbara County Coalition Against Automobile Subsidies v. Santa Barbara County Assn, of Governments, 167 Cal.App.4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (pre-ballot activity before measure qualification not treated as campaign)