The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or whether the application should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Division's letter to Petitioner dated July 25, 1984. The subject letter included the following: The above-captioned license application has been disapproved on this date for the following reason(s): Applicant not believed to be of good moral character. Also, applicant has been convicted in the last past fifteen (15) years of a felony, the subject matter of which relates to the specific license being sought. Applicant has falsely sworn to a material statement. At the hearing the Respondent offered nine exhibits into evidence. Eight of the exhibits were received in evidence without objection. The ninth exhibit was rejected. The Respondent did not call any witnesses of its own, but did cross examine the witnesses called by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not offer any exhibits, but did present the testimony of the following witnesses: Robin Lewis, William Bryson, Alvin Robbins, Robert Pepper, Frank Rubio, and Donald Lewis. Subsequent to the hearing the parties both filed late posthearing submissions to the Hearing Officer. 1/ The Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law, a Suggested Order, and Proposed Findings of Fact. The Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended Order. Their tardiness notwithstanding, the Hearing Officer has given careful consideration to the post-hearing submissions of the parties in the formulation of this Recommended Order. 2/ To the extent that findings of fact proposed by the parties have not been included in the findings of fact which follow, the proposed findings not included have been rejected for one or more of the following reasons: they are irrelevant or immaterial to the disposition of the case, they are cumulative or repetitious, they are not supported by competent substantial evidence, and/or they are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits admitted into evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses who were called at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The application which is the subject of this case was filed by OWL Enterprises, Inc., a corporation. Donald W. Lewis is the President, Secretary, and Treasurer of DWL Enterprises, Inc., and owns 1OO of the stock of the corporation. Thus, it is the moral character, criminal record, and conduct of Donald W. Lewis which is at issue in this case. Beginning with his high school years, on through his college years, and at least up until the time of his imprisonment in August of 1979, Donald W. Lewis was a person of poor moral character. During that period of time he drank a lot of alcoholic beverages and also became involved with various illegal drugs. The following is a summary of his criminal record prior to his 1979 imprisonment: April 1968. Arrested for petty larceny, plead guilty, fined $100.00. June 5, 1969. Arrested for petty larceny. June 28, 1974. Arrested for DWI. June 28, 1974. Arrested for pos- session of 20.5 grams of marijuana, prosecution deferred. December 5, 1975. Arrested for aggravated assault and battery, charges dropped. June 18, 1976. Information issued charging conspiracy to deliver or possess cocaine. June 18, 1976. Information issued charging delivery of cocaine. January 28, 1977. Convicted for conspiracy to deliver or possess cocaine. January 28, 1977. Convicted for delivery of cocaine. July 30, 1977. Arrested for DWI. October 28, 1977. Arrested for delivery of cocaine. October 28, 4977. Arrested for possession of cocaine. October 28, 1977. Arrested for felony possession of marijuana. October 28, 1977. Arrested for possession of qualudes. July 30, 1979. Convicted of conspiracy to deliver or possess with intent to deliver cocaine. Sentenced to two years imprisonment July 30, 1979. Probation revoked and sentenced to two years for prior conviction. August 31, 1979, to September 2, 1981. Served prison term. Since his release from prison Donald W. Lewis has not been arrested for or convicted of any offense other than one traffic citation for speeding. When Donald W. Lewis filed the subject application in May of 1984, he was required, among other things, to answer the following questions printed on the application form: Have you ever been: Arrested or charged for a violation of a felony law or misdemeanor law of this State, or any other state or of the United States? * * * 6. Have any arrests or charges that may have been made, ever resulted in a conviction against you? * * * If the answer to any of these questions is YES, list aliases and give full disclosure of charges, dates, arresting agencies & places of arrest. (attach extra sheets if necessary). In response to the questions quoted immediately above Donald W. Lewis provided some information about his arrests and convictions and `attached some documents which provided further information about his arrests and convictions, but he did not make a full disclosure. In particular, he did not disclose the following: June 28, 1974. Arrested for DWI. December 5, 1974. Arrested for aggra- vated assault and battery. July 3O, 1977. Arrested for DWI. October 28, 1977. Arrested for felony possession of marijuana. October 28, 1977. Arrested for possession of qualudes. On his 1984 application, Donald W. Lewis also failed to disclose two arrests which he had disclosed on an earlier application filed in 1975. The two arrests disclosed in 1975, but not in 1984 are: April 1968. Arrested for petty larceny, plead guilty, fined $100.00. June 28, 1974. Arrested for possession of 20.5 grams of marijuana, prosecution deferred. Donald W. Lewis has offered several excuses for his failure to make a full disclosure of his arrest and conviction history when he prepared his 1984 application, but none of the excuses are persuasive. Donald W. Lewis falsely swore to material statements in his 1984 application because his answers to questions concerning his arrest and conviction history were woefully incomplete. When Donald W. Lewis was released from prison in September of 1981 he went to live with his father. He had no regular employment from September of 1981 until November of 1983, although during that period he helped his father build an addition on his father's house. About six months ago Donald W. Lewis married into a socially prominent family and he and his wife have been living at her parent's home. Since November of 1983, Donald W. Lewis and his wife have worked hard to start their new business for which they are seeking an alcoholic beverage license. Donald W. Lewis has impressed his business landlords as being a hard worker and a dependable person. His business landlords and several of his old friends believe that Donald W. Lewis has turned over a new leaf and is now a dependable person of good moral character . 4/
Recommendation For the reasons explained above, the Petitioner's application is subject to denial for each of the reasons set forth in the Respondent's letter of July 25, 1984. Accordingly, I recommend that a Final Order be entered which would deny the Petitioner's application. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of December, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Beverage Laws as alleged in Notice to Show cause dated January 3, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, held 2-COP license No. 61-00066 to sell alcoholic beverages at 311 Pennsylvania Avenue, San Antonio, Florida. On October 31, 1990 several Beverage agents entered The Establishment where a Halloween party was in progress among the St. Leo College students. Upon entering the bar an employee at the door checked identification and stamped the back of the entering patron's hand. An underage operator with DABT entered with another agent and the stamp placed on the back of the minor's hand could not be distinguished from the stamp on the hand of the adult agent. The minor went to the bar and purchased beer on two occasions without further questioning or identification by the bartender. Bartenders had been directed to sell beer to those with stamps or wrist bands as they had been cleared by the bouncer at the door as age-qualified to purchase alcoholic beverages. During the evening of October 31-November 1, 1990 several minors were arrested for possessing alcoholic beverages (beer) in bottles with Annheuser- Busch labels and several others had purchased beer from the bartender. The ages of these minors were verified by driver's licenses possessed by these patrons. One of the DABT agents, Sgt. Timothy Allen, had a discussion with James John Redman III who appeared to be in charge of The Establishment. Allen was told by Redman that Redman was the new owner of The Establishment and the papers verifying this ownership were in an attorney's office in Miami. No application to change ownership has been presented at the district office of the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is recommended that the 2-COP alcoholic beverage license No. 61-00066 issued to Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Lance Joseph, Esquire 9990 S.W. 77 Avenue, Suite 210 Miami, FL 33156 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Don D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a wholesale cigarette dealer's permit should be granted, or denied on the ground that two of its corporate officers lack good moral character.
Findings Of Fact In November, 1981, Applicant corporation applied to DABT for a wholesale cigarette dealer's permit. (P-1.) Applicant is owned by Marlene Kantor (50 percent) and Eugene and Charlotte Milgram (50 percent). Marlene Kantor is the president and chief executive officer; Eugene Milgram is the secretary-treasurer. (Testimony of Milgram, Kantor; P-1.) In January, 1982, DABT disapproved Applicant's permit application on the ground that two of the owners lacked good moral character. By letter dated February 12, 1982, DABT explained: The basis for the denial under moral char- acter is that these two individuals [Eugene and Charlotte Milgram] are corporate officers in a beverage licensed establishment which has had its beverage license revoked. (P-4.) The parties agree that, in all other respects, Applicant is qualified for the requested wholesale cigarette dealer's permit. (Prehearing Stipulation; P-2, P- 3, P-4.) In 1981, Eugene and Charlotte Milgram were stockholders and corporate officers of a licensed alcoholic beverage establishment known as the Palace Bar and Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Palace Bar ("Palace Bar" or "licensee") located in Miami, Florida. In that year, DABT instituted an administrative action against Palace Bar for alleged violations of the Beverage Law, Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. By Final Order dated July 2, 1981, in State of Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Palace Bar and Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Palace Bar, DOAH Case No. 81-501, DABT revoked the alcoholic beverage license of Palace Bar on the ground that it was negligent and failed to exercise due diligence by not taking necessary steps to prohibit illicit drug activity on the premises. The order indicates that several illicit drug transactions occurred between undercover agents and patrons of the bar during a 13-day period; that none of the transactions exceeded $25; that the licensee did not condone this activity; that measures (although subsequently proved inadequate) had been taken to prevent drug activity on the premises; that there was no showing that the licensee participated in or had direct knowledge of the patrons' illicit drug activities; and that owners of the licensee-- whose visits to the premises were infrequent--left the management of the licensed premises (during the period in question) in the hands of its full-time bar manager. This DABT order has been appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. (R-2, P-5.) Since 1966, Eugene Milgram has owned and operated Wash & Dry Vending Company, a company which owns and maintains laundry equipment in apartments and institutions. He and Charlotte Milgram, his wife, have reputations in the Miami area as honest people. Business loans which they have obtained have been timely repaid; because of their good record, Barnett Bank of South Florida would, if requested, extend to them an unsecured line of credit of up to $500,000. (Testimony of Randall, Rossin, Milgram.) During the years the Milgrams operated the Palace Bar and Wash & Dry Vending Company, they complied with all federal and state tax reporting requirements. Internal Revenue Service audits of their tax records did not reveal any significant deficiencies. (Testimony of Rossin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the requested wholesale cigarette dealer's permit be issued. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1982.
The Issue Was the Petitioner's application denied for good cause and is the Petitioner entitled to the beverage license for which he applied?
Findings Of Fact Henry McCalister and Willie Mack applied for a beverage license to the Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation. Willie Mack was notified that this application was to be denied because he had been convicted of a felony within the past 15 years pursuant to Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. He was further advised that he was entitled to a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Respondent failed to produce at hearing any evidence of Mack's conviction of a felony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent issue the applicant the beverage license for which they applied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of September, 1978. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Willie Mack 834 Robinson Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32209 Francis Bayley, Esq. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32304
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 26-1715. The licensed premises is located at 621 Davis Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's undercover investigator and confidential informant (CI) entered the licensed premises on March 9, 1982. Thereafter, the CI purchased cannabis from a patron of the licensed facility (Count 3) Petitioner's investigator returned to the licensed premises with the CI on March 10, 1982, on which date both the CI and the investigator purchased cannabis from a patron. On this occasion the patron was identified as a seller by the bartender when she was asked who would sell cannabis. These transactions were carried out openly (Count 4) Petitioner's investigator was again in the licensed premises on March 11, 1982, and observed the open sale and use of cannabis. He identified the substance sold and smoked by its appearance and smell (Count 5) . In those instances where Petitioner's investigator and CI made purchases, the substances were tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab, and confirmed to be cannabis. See Petitioner's Exhibit One. On March 24, 1982, Petitioner's investigator visited the licensed premises where he again observed the open sale and use of cannabis by patrons as well as by an employee (barmaid) of Respondent. The investigator also purchased cannabis from patron during this visit (Count 8). On March 25, 1982, Petitioner's investigator was on the licensed premises and observed the open sale and use of cannabis. He made purchases of this substance from a patron around 2:00 pm. and again about 11:30 p.m. (Count 9). Petitioner's investigator was in the licensed premises on March 26, 1982. He again purchased cannabis from a patron (Count 10). Respondent was not observed on the premises during any of the above periods. It was not, therefore, demonstrated that he had actual knowledge of the illegal activity.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner may be granted an alcoholic beverage license. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner and Respondent agreed to the admission of their Prehearing Stipulation as Hearing Officer Exhibit A. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Bob Young, James E. Willis, Mark Orr, Gary Ellwood, Bruce Hunter, and Andy Hoy and had admitted three exhibits. Petitioner also made an oral proffer that six additional witnesses would, if called, testify to the good moral character of James E. Willis. Respondent presented only the oral testimony of Barry Schoenfe1d. No transcript was provided, but the parties timely submitted their respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact have been ruled upon in the appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Rialto Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Hoy's Rialto Restaurant, whose president is James E. Willis. Respondent is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On August 14, 1986, Petitioner filed an application for an alcoholic beverages license in connection with the purchase of Hoy's Rialto Restaurant. On September 29, 1980, James E. Willis was convicted of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance (methaqualone). On January 10, 1986, James E. Willis received a certificate of restoration of civil rights. James E. Willis currently enjoys a good reputation within the Ft. Pierce, Florida business community. Particularly persuasive of Willis' present good moral character is the entirely favorable factual and opinion evidence offered on his behalf by the prosecutor who presented the original case resulting in Willis' 1980 conviction. Several witnesses with opportunity to observe and good reason to know, also testified that Willis has taken an active and apparently effective stand against drug possession and/or drug use in Hoy's Rialto Restaurant. Subsequent to Petitioner's application for licensure, Sgt. Bob Young of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco investigated James E. Willis. Willis had made full disclosure on his application and thereafter concealed none of the facts found in findings of fact paragraphs 4-6, supra. After completing his investigation and despite Mr. Willis' conviction, Sgt. Young recommended approval of the Petitioner's application for licensure. Nonetheless, on February 6, 1987, Respondent denied Petitioner's license application on the grounds that Petitioner's corporate officer, James E. Willis, had been convicted of a felony within the past 15 years for a crime which directly related to the Alcoholic Beverages Law. Barry Schoenfeld, Chief of Licensing for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, testified that it is Respondent's unwritten, uncodified "policy" to deny licensure when an applicant has a corporate officer with a felony conviction within 15 years from the date of application, which conviction involves one of the five crimes enumerated in Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. This agency "policy" has been in effect at least 5 years immediately prior to the formal hearing. Likewise, it is Respondent's position that a narcotics conviction, as in the instant case, is "directly related" to the license sought by Petitioner. Sgt. Young did not advise Mr. Willis of said policy, nor did he indicate that Petitioner's application would not be approved. Had this policy been in writing or otherwise available or made known to Petitioner prior to submitting its application, Petitioner would not have purchased Hoy's Rialto Restaurant. There are no other unwritten policies concerning automatic rejections for applications by persons convicted of any crime other than drug related crimes. There is no written agency policy or unwritten agency policy as to what crimes directly relate to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, the Alcoholic Beverages Law. No other facts exist that would disqualify Petitioner's application for licensure.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverages license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1677 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Covered in FOF 1 and 3. Covered in FOF 2. 3, 4, 5. Covered in FOF 7. Covered in FOF 8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 9. To the extent it is not accepted, it is rejected as not supported by the evidence as a whole. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. See FOF 9-11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 12. 13-14. Covered in FOF 6 except for those matters which are subordinate and unnecessary to a disposition of the issues in this cause. 15-16. Covered in FOF 11. Respondent' s PFOF: 1. Covered in FOF 1. 2. Covered in FOF 2. 3. Covered in FOF 3. 4. Covered in FOF 4. 5. Covered in FOF 5. 6. Covered in FOF 8. 7. Covered in FOF 6. 8. Covered in FOF 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph J. DeRoss, Jr., Esquire 133 South Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact On March 25, 1983, Mr. Luther Thomas, petitioner in this case, who operates an automotive repair shop in Gainesville, Florida, entered the Respondent's local office and secured an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License (DBR Form 700-1) and the related Personal Questionnaire (DBR Form 710L). These forms were filled out, signed under oath by Petitioner and submitted to Respondent for processing on March 28, 1983. At the time the forms were submitted, the questionnaire had on it a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been arrested for or charged with a violation of a felony law or misdemeanor law of the State of Florida, any other state, or the United States, excluding minor traffic laws. This form was marked "No" by Petitioner. Whether he did it at the time of submittal or when it was brought to his attention by a beverage officer who came to his place of business is in question, but when it was done is immaterial. The fact remains that Petitioner stated "No" when in fact, according to his testimony at the hearing, he had been charged several times: once for failure to pay support, and twice for driving while under the influence. Also, in addition, in 1968, he appeared before a judge on an allegation of assault with intent to commit homicide, but was never arrested. He voluntarily reported to the courthouse without being placed under arrest, and the allegation was dismissed. However, since Petitioner could not state with any particularity what actually happened, and since Respondent did not produce any evidence of a charge or arrest, this incident is not considered as being reportable. The DWIs and the failures to pay support were not felonies at the time of commission. Sometime after the submission of the application, Beverage Officer Woodrow came out to Petitioner's place of business to do a sketch of the layout which was needed to process the application. During this visit, Woodrow indicated to Petitioner that they needed to talk about his arrest record. At this point, Petitioner responded to the effect that he "ain't never been arrested." The prior involvement for assault with intent to commit homicide was known to Respondent and considered at the time it issued him a prior beverage license in 1973 or 1974. Mr. Thomas felt that since he had not been arrested then, since the allegation had been dismissed, and since he had previously been issued a license with this information known to Respondent, there was no reason to list it again. This former license lapsed when Mr. Thomas went out of business after a heart attack. It was not disciplined or revoked by Respondent. The questionnaire form which Petitioner filled out contains, in the oath, the reference to Section 559.791, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides that a false statement in the questionnaire or application constitutes grounds for denial of a license. The "pending and undetermined criminal and felony charges" referred to in Respondent's letter of denial, according to Petitioner, related to three separate worthless checks. These charges were reduced to a misdemeanor and resolved by Petitioner making restitution. No jail time or fine was imposed. Mr. Thomas is presently facing misdemeanor charges in Alachua County, Florida, in violation of Section 837.06, Florida Statutes (1981) , based on the same alleged false statement in the questionnaire as are used as basis for denial of his license here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Luther Thomas, doing business as Lake Road Beverages, be issued an alcoholic beverage license as applied for. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Luther Thomas 2824 N.E. 12th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioners filed their application for a transfer of alcoholic beverage license number 69-195, Type 2-APS, and for a change of business name. Also submitted to the respondent were personal data sheets for each petitioner. District supervisor Leon Rousseau processed the application and forwarded it to Tallahassee with a recommendation of disapproval, remarking that co-applicant Thomas L. Pennington "has arrest record which creates questionable moral character" and citing F.S. 561.15. State licensing supervisor Charles Leonard Ivey, Jr. reviewed the application, the personal data sheets, the agent's report of investigation and the arrest record of petitioner Thomas Pennington, which revealed arrests for attempted grand larceny, possession of non-tax-paid whiskey, possession of untaxed cigarettes, impersonating a beverage officer and worthless checks. Such arrests date back to 1960-61, with the latest conviction for attempted grand larceny, a misdemeanor, occurring on May 28, 1975. Mr. Ivey considered Mr. Pennington's arrest record and the omissions of data concerning such arrests in both the petitioners' application and the personal data form of Thomas Pennington. On the application for transfer, petitioners gave an answer of "?" to the question of "have any of said persons been convicted of any other offense, excluding minor traffic violations?" While admitting on his personal data sheet that he had been arrested twice and giving the place of arrest, he failed to provide the further information requested as to the arresting agency, the nature of the offense and the disposition of the case. Mr. Ivey concluded that these facts were indicative of a disregard of the beverage laws and accordingly recommended that the application be disapproved. On April 26, 1976, petitioners were notified by Division of Beverage Director Charles A. Nuzum that their application had been disapproved for the reason that "co-applicant T.L. Pennington has arrest record which creates questionable moral character," citing F.S. 561.15. Thomas L. Pennington admitted that he had committed various wrongs in the past, but stated that he felt he had changed since his last arrest in 1975. He stated that many of his prior problems were a result of excessive drinking and he no longer drinks. He has a job as a carpenter and would only help out on the licensed premises a small portion of the time. Theda Q. Pennington testified that Thomas has changed enough since his last offense so that she believes he will no longer commit such offenses. As evidence of such change, Mrs. Pennington cited that he no longer drinks, works hard and is predictable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license number 69-195 be denied. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Pennington Theda Q. Pennington 2024 Airport Boulevard Sanford, Florida Mr. Charles A. Nuzum Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Charles A. Curtis Attorney for Respondent Department of Business Regulation Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: At all times material to the charges, Ronald Wayne Diamond and Susan Joyce Saiia owned and operated a partnership trading as Susan's Las Olas Seafood Market at 1404 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida ("the licensed premises") On the licensed premises, they sold alcoholic beverages under the authority of alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS. On January 17 or 18, 1982,and on January 19, 1982, Broward County Sheriff's Department Detective Fernandez entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and negotiated with Respondent Ronald Diamond for the sale and delivery of cocaine and cannabis. Respondent Susan Saiia was present and aware of these negotiations, although she did not actively participate in them. On one of these occasions, she warned Respondent Diamond to be careful, that she had seen someone in the back alley who looked like he was wearing a recording device. On January 20, 1982, Respondent Diamond was arrested on charges of unlawful trafficking in cocaine and possessing cannabis in violation of Sections 893.135(1)(b) and 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes. He was taken to the licensed premises where a search warrant was executed and two ounces of marijuana were found in an office file cabinet. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) On May 6, 1982, the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, adjudging Respondent Diamond guilty of these felonies, sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and fined him $250,000 for trafficking in cocaine. He was sentenced to an additional five years for the possession of cannabis. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents' alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Hoggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice Graham, Esquire Suite 2 2161 E. Commercial Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Eugene Willner is the corporate officer and sole stockholder of G.W. Liquors of Broward, Inc., d/b/a Case Deliveries, and G.W. Liquors of Collier, Inc., d/b/a Discounted by the Case. On August 27, 1980, Eugene Willner entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to a violation of Title 21, United States Code s. 963, Conspiracy to Import Marijuana. Based upon his plea he was convicted and sentenced to two years of imprisonment, and a fine of $5000 was imposed. Willner had never before been convicted of any offense, nor has he been convicted of any offense subsequent to the 1980 conviction. Other than the 1980 conviction, Willner has a reputation of good moral character in his community. On July 8, 1983 Willner received a Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights which provided, in relevant part, that he ... is restored to all civil rights in this State, except the specific authority to possess or own a firearm, lost by reason of any and all felonies this person may have been convicted of in another state, federal, or military court . In early 1987, the Petitioner corporate entities controlled by Willner applied for new quota alcoholic beverage licenses. Those applications disclosed Willner's 1980 conviction and his 1983 restoration of civil rights. On October 28, 1987, Respondent denied the applications. Of the 8500 licensed alcoholic beverage premises in Dade and Monroe Counties, only approximately 20 to 25 (or approximately one-quarter of one percent) are experiencing a problem with narcotics.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioners' applications for alcoholic beverage licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-5565 & 87-5566 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's unnumbered proposed finding of fact has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein for the reasons set forth in this Recommended Order. Additionally, that proposed finding of fact contains phrases which are not supported by the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting background information forming the basis for Respondent's proposed agency action in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 6, respectively, have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel and recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: C. I. Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Bruce Rogow, Esquire 2097 S.W. 27th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 S.W. 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
