 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoover v. Saenz11/20/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Theresa Hoover appeals orders denying her petitions for a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 (administrative mandate) and 1085 (ordinary mandate). The administrative mandate petition sought to set aside a decision of the California Department of Social Services (DSS) denying Hoover's application for an exemption that would have allowed her to work in a licensed community care facility, despite her criminal record. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1569.17.)
The ordinary petition for mandate sought to compel the DSS to promulgate regulations defining the criteria the DSS uses to determine whether an applicant for an exemption is "of such good character as to justify . . . granting an exemption . . . ." (§ 1569.17, subd. (f)(1).) The court denied both petitions, and Hoover filed a timely appeal. We shall affirm.
FACTS
Theresa Hoover began working at Cherish Manor, a DSS licensed care facility for the elderly, in July 2000, while she was participating in a drug rehabilitation program at the New Life House of Hope. On October 12, 2000, the DSS notified the Cherish Manor licensee, Mary Kane, that, based upon Hoover's criminal history, Hoover must be excluded from the facility unless she obtained an exemption. Kane applied for an exemption on Hoover's behalf, but the exemption was denied. The Notice of Denial of Exemption stated: "The primary concern of this Department is the health and safety of clients served. To justify granting an exemption, the Department must have substantial and convincing evidence to support a reasonable belief that the person is of good character. The information provided with the request did not convince us that this standard was met."
Hoover exercised her right to appeal the decision, and a de novo hearing was held on September 13, 2001, before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The DSS submitted documentary evidence that Hoover had been convicted of six misdemeanor offenses and one felony between 1988 and 1999. These convictions were as follows: (1) a 1988 misdemeanor conviction of petty theft; (2) a 1988 misdemeanor conviction of writing checks with insufficient funds; (3) a 1990 misdemeanor conviction for petty theft; (4) a 1990 misdemeanor conviction of possession of methamphetamine; (5) a 1993 misdemeanor conviction of petty theft with a prior; (6) a 1997 misdemeanor conviction of possession of paraphernalia; and (7) a 1999 felony conviction of possession of methamphetamine. With respect to the 1999 conviction, Hoover was placed on probation for three years. The term of her probation was to expire on November 2, 2002.
Hoover testified that she was 35 years old, and began using methamphetamine when she was 18. She had been addicted to methamphetamine for 15 to 17 years. Her habit initially cost approximately $50 a day, and eventually escalated to a cost of between $100 and $150 a day. Her use of methamphetamine led to the commission of crimes because she "had to do whatever could to get drugs." Throughout the entire period of her addiction, she also intermittently sold methamphetamine to support her habit, and later also to support her child. She could not remember all the details of her arrests and convictions, because she was too high at the time.
With respect to the most recent conviction in 1999 for felony possession of a co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|