The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent properly denied Petitioner's entitlement to a quota beverage license in Bradford County, Florida. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses Allen F. Nash and, by deposition, L. B. Schoenfeld. Petitioner also testified on her own behalf. The Respondent called as its only witness Allen F. Nash. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. The Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the disposition of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this case is an applicant for a quota beverage license and filed her initial application for that license on October 23, 1981. That application was titled "Preliminary Application for New Quota Alcoholic Beverage License." Paragraph five of the instructions contained in the preliminary application referred to above states: This is Part I of a two (2) part application. Part II will be fur- nished to you if selected in the drawing. Part II includes among other things, health approval (if required), zoning approval and proof of right of occupancy. On October 13, 1982, the Petitioner was notified by letter from the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that she had been selected in the random drawing on October 6, 1983, for a new quota beverage license for Starke, Bradford County, Florida. This letter informed Petitioner that her name had been drawn and that the agency must act on her application within 180 days of the drawing. Paragraph three of that letter states: We suggest that you contact our Jackson- ville field office located at the Richard P. Daniel Building, 111 East Coastline Drive, Suite 514, Jacksonville, as soon as pos- sible. You must file your complete appli- cation which will include, among other items, a location, zoning approval, and fingerprints, if you are not already a current licensee, for yourself and those to be interested with you in your business. Please bear in mind that our agency has only 180 days from the date of the drawing to act upon your application. We urge you to move forward in order to save time necessary to process the appli- cation and complete the investigative process. On October 22, 1982, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco forwarded to Petitioner the forms necessary to complete Part II of the application process. Those forms and the accompanying letter were received by the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to file Part II of the application and on April 7, 1983, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by letter notified the Petitioner that her entitlement to a quota beverage license had been disapproved. The authority for such disapproval was given as Florida Statute 561.17 and Florida Statute 561.19. The information which was to be provided subsequent to the drawing, which was not included in the preliminary application, included: Information relating to the right of the applicant to occupy the premises to be licensed. The health approval of the premises to be licensed. This approval must be signed by a proper representative of the state/county health authorities. Information relating to the zoning of the premises to be licensed. A portion of the second application form in section 7 must be completed by the local zoning authorities and must reflect that the premises to be licensed complies with the local zoning ordinance for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a quota beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 16th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire 516 North Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida u2301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 19th day of August, 1975, the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, his agent, servant or employee, one Robert Henry Williams did unlawfully sell an alcoholic beverage, to wit: one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer, in a manner not permitted by the Respondent's beverage license, to wit: while the license was suspended, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 19, 1975, the beverage license which the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage was on active suspension. The notice of suspension had been served on Leartis Frazier at Frazier's Grocery, 2273 Commonwealth Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. Furthermore, a sign had been posted at that address which indicated that the license of Leartis Frazier t/a Frazier's Grocery was suspended. On August 19, 1975, while the license was under suspension an officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed one David Brooks enter Frazier's Grocery, without any objects in his hands. This observation occurred after the officer had encountered Brooks moments before in the conduct of an investigation and Brooks had not been carrying any objects in his hands at that moment either. Several minutes after entering the Frazier's, the same David Brooks exited Frazier's Grocery with a paper bag in his hands which contained one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer. The Officer then entered the licensed premises and went to the beer counter and opened it up and discovered one can of beer missing from a six-pack container of Budweiser beer. At the time the officer made this investigation the sign which had been placed in the window of Frazier's Grocery to indicate the license suspension was being displayed. A Mr. Williams was sitting behind the counter inside the licensed premises as an employee, agent or servant of the Respondent at the time the officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office discovered the missing can of beer. Mr. Brooks, when questioned about where he had bought the can of beer, after discussion, indicated that he had bought it at Frazier's Grocery. By Mr. Brooks' statement and the officer's observation, it is established that Mr. Williams sold the Budweiser beer to Brooks. The Mr. Williams was identified in the hearing, as being Robert Henry Williams.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, be suspended for a period of one year for the violation as established in the hearing on this Notice to Show Cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leartis Frazier 2273 Commonwealth Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Policy Statement, that the inclusion of revoked quota licenses in Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, double-random selection by public drawing, constitutes an unpromulgated rule contrary to Sections 120.54 and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying, the documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are found. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the state Agency responsible for implementation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, Beverage Law Administration. In July 2001, Petitioner (BHI) made applications to the Agency for four quota alcoholic beverage licenses made available by revocation. Among those licenses, BHI made application for license number 47-00190, a quota license, initially issued before 1980 pursuant to the Leon County Special Act governing quota licenses; Chapters 63-1561 and 63-1976, Laws of Florida. License number 47-00190, a quota license revoked by the Agency approximately two years before BHI's application in 2001, became and remained available for reissuance at the time BHI filed its petition. The Agency denied BHI's application for revoked quota license no. 47-00190 in Leon County. A quota license is an alcoholic beverage license issued in a county whose population count, at the time of issuance, supports its issuance. In 1979, the Florida Legislature determined each county's population count to be 2,500 persons per quota license. In 2000, the Legislature determined each county's population count to be 7,500 persons per quota license. However, Section 561.19, Florida Statutes (2000), does not specifically direct the Agency to conduct a county's population re-count of 7,500 persons before the reissuance of a revoked quota license issued under the prior population count of 2,500 persons per county. The double-random selection drawing conducted by the Agency pursuant to Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, on October 31, 2001, included an alcoholic beverage license for use in Leon County that became available by virtue of the revocation of that alcoholic beverage license bearing license number 47-00190, which was issued before the change in the population count and the random selection method now contained in Section 561.19, Florida Statutes. The Agency based its denial of Leon County quota license 47-00190 in its Policy Statement of general applicability. The injury to BHI related to the denial of that quota license is within the zone of interest to be regulated and protected under Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and Petitioner has standing to initiate and prosecute this proceeding. As alluded to before, BHI also made applications in July 2001 for revoked quota license number 26-00921 and revoked quota license number 26-00208 in Duval County; application for revoked quota license number 63-00525 in Polk County; and application for revoked quota license number 45-00073 in Lake County. Each revoked quota license was issued pursuant to the special act applicable to each county and was issued before the 1980 Amendment to Section 561.19, Florida Statutes. The Agency argues in its Proposed Final Order that Duval County (2) and Lake County (1) have exceeded their respective quota license limits, but does not address the quota license limits of the Polk County and the Leon County revoked quota licenses. It is assumed, based upon the fact the revoked quota licenses in those two counties were made available for reissuance, those quota licenses did not exceed the current quota limit of the 7,500 population count. The quota licenses above were revoked several years ago by the Agency and became available for reissuance. Regarding each application filed, BHI received a notice from the Agency stating that: There is no license currently available for issuance in a (specific) County. When licenses become available by reason of increase in population or revocation of a quota license, these licenses are re-issued pursuant to a double-random selection by public drawing. (Emphasis added) The parties entered into a stipulation concerning . . . the Division's policy statement that revoked alcoholic beverage licenses are to be included in drawings conducted pursuant to Florida Statutes, 561.19. . . . BHI challenged the Agency's Policy Statement of general applicability that revoked quota alcoholic beverage licenses are required to be included in a random drawing pursuant to Section 561.19, Florida Statutes. BHI argues that Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, authorizes double-random selection drawings for issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses in only two situations: (a) where licenses become available by an increase in population of a county; or (b) where a dry county, by special act, becomes a wet county. The Agency has embarked on a stated policy, not adopted as a rule, in which, contrary to Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, it includes all revoked quota licenses in the double- random selection drawing. The Agency has thus instituted an unwritten rule policy contrary to Sections 120.54 and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. The policy statement was applied to BHI's applications for revoked licenses by letters from the Agency denying BHI's four applications for revoked quota licenses stating revoked quota licenses are to be placed in a random selection drawing pursuant to Subsection 561.19(2), Florida Statutes. The Agency, in its pubic legal notice, concerning a double-random selection drawing, set forth the total number of licenses available in each county that are to be awarded by the random selection drawing. Several of the counties listed in the legal notice have an asterisk next to the total licenses available for that county. The explanation by the Agency for the public notice asterisk is to identify those revoked quota licenses included in the total number of available licenses. The following findings of fact are based, in part, on the stipulation of the parties concerning this dispute. The Agency does not have an adopted rule that addresses inclusion of all revoked license in double-random selection drawings. The Agency agreed that the above Policy Statement had not been adopted as a rule by appropriate rulemaking procedures as defined in Sections 120.54 and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. The Agency takes the position that Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, authorizes double-random selection by public drawing to be used when a quota license becomes available by an increase of 7,500 in a county's population. The Agency's position is that Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, grants the Division Director discretionary authority to enforce the Alcoholic Beverage Law, Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, in accordance with the Legislative intent. Accordingly, Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, is the grant of authority for the Agency's Policy Statement herein challenged. Additionally, the Legislative intent of Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, argues the Agency, is twofold: (1) it removed sole discretion from the Division Director to issue quota licenses, and (2) created a system to ensure licenses issued after 1980 would be in a fair and equitable manner to all applicants. The answer to the threshold question, of whether the Agency's Policy Statement at issue is intended to have the effect of law, is in the affirmative. Prior to the 1980 Amendment to Section 561.19, Florida Statutes, revoked quota license were reissued in accordance with Section 561.02, Florida Statutes (1979). An application was made for a specific revoked license; the application was reviewed and investigated, and if found in compliance with statutory requirements by the Agency, the Director issued the quota license to the approved applicant. The parties agreed that in the event that two applications were made for one license, the first application filed and approved would be granted the license.
The Issue Whether the Petitioners are entitled to a transfer of the quota license they attempted to apply for in their initial application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license for a restaurant based upon their second application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license based upon their third application in spite of the county's refusal to approve the zoning of the proposed location until a pending declaratory judgment before the circuit court is resolved. Whether the Respondent is estopped to deny any of the applications because of the representations made by a field agent for the agency that to his knowledge, there were no problems at the proposed location.
Findings Of Fact The joint stipulation of facts entered into by the parties on December 21, 1988, are adopted as the findings of fact in this proceeding. A copy of the stipulation is attached and made part of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact On November 17, 1981, Petitioner submitted a preliminary application (Exhibit 5) for a New Quota alcoholic beverage license. This application, which was sworn to by Petitioner, contained the query whether applicant had been convicted in the past five years of any beverage law violation. To this question Petitioner marked the "No" block. This application was filled out by each applicant in pencil, gone over with the applicant by a beverage office supervisor, given to a secretary to type, and returned to the applicant to check for completion and accuracy before the applicant executed the application by signing the affidavit at the bottom of the application in which, under oath, he swore to the accuracy of the information contained in the application. On December 26, 1977, Petitioner was arrested for allowing alcoholic beverages to be served and consumed after hours in his father's bar. He was convicted of this misdemeanor and sentenced to serve ten (10) days in the county jail by order entered January 20, 1978 (Exhibit 4). As a result of this conviction of a beverage law violation within five years of the filing of the application for a New Quota beverage license, the information contained on the application was untrue and Petitioner was not then eligible for a New quota license. After Petitioner's application for a New Quota license was facially approved, Petitioner was required to, and did, furnish fingerprints to Respondent. A check of the fingerprint records disclosed Petitioner's prior conviction of a beverage law violation in January, 1978. No evidence was presented showing the date Petitioner applied to have a New Quota 4-COP license issued, but Petitioner testified this occurred more than five years after he was convicted of the beverage law violation, i.e., after January 20, 1983. By letter dated February 14, 1983 (Exhibit 2) , this application was denied because of the beverage law violation and the false entry in the application sworn to as true by Petitioner. Had Petitioner answered the question on the New Quota application regarding a beverage law violation within the past five years accurately, his application would have been disapproved. Again, no evidence was submitted when Petitioner submitted his application for a 2-COP license, but he testified this was after his 4-COP license application had been denied, i.e., after February 14, 1983. At this time an answer that he had not been convicted of a beverage law violation within the past five years would have been truthful. Petitioner presented his father and a friend of his father, who had worked part-time at the father's pizza shop, to testify that Petitioner had always been truthful in his dealings with them.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of selling alcoholic beverages not permitted by Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 46-02076, series 14-BC. This license authorizes Respondent to operate as a bottle club, under Sections 561.01(15) and 561.14(6). Respondent's licensed premises is located at 8595 College Parkway, Number B12, Ft. Myers. On October 29, 1996, at about 2:00 am, two of Petitioner's agents entered the licensed premises after paying a $2 cover charge. Neither agent had any alcoholic beverages in his possession. However, two of Respondent's employees assured them that they did not need to bring alcoholic beverages. One of these employees was the manager and the other was the barmaid. One agent ordered a Budweiser beer (Bud) and a shot of Jim Beam whiskey. The other agent ordered a Bud. The first agent later ordered another Jim Beam, but was told they were out of Jim Beam. The agent then ordered an Early Times whiskey. Respondent's barmaid took these orders and filled them with stock kept apart from other patrons. This person collected $3 for each of the drinks. On November 3, 1995, at about 2:00 am, the same agents returned to the licensed premises, again without any alcoholic beverages in their possession. They entered the premises after paying a $2 cover charge. Again, the agents placed orders with the barmaid employed by Respondent to work behind the bar. In response to a question from one of the agents as to what kinds of beers they had for sale, the barmaid recited several brand names. Each agent ordered an Ice House beer and paid $3. One of the agents next ordered an Early Times whiskey. The other agent ordered a Jim Beam whiskey. The barmaid informed the agent ordering the Jim Beam that they did not have any and suggested three other brands of whiskey. The agent ordered the Canadian Club. The employee served the drinks to each agent, who paid $3 for each drink. On November 9, 1995, at 3:15 am, the agents returned to the licensed premises. They paid a $1 cover charge and entered the premises without an alcoholic beverage in their possession. One agent ordered an Ice House beer and the other ordered a Jack Daniels. The barmaid was not there, but the employee who had formerly served as the manager worked as a bartender during this visit. The bartender served the agent an Ice House beer, for which he paid $3. The bartender told the other agent that they did not have any Jack Daniels, so the agent ordered a Canadian Club whiskey. The employee served the agent a drink of Canadian Club, for which he paid $3. Each of the above-described drinks ordered and consumed by the agents and served by the two employees of Respondent were alcoholic beverages. During the six hours that the agents were in the licensed premises, they saw only two persons enter the premises with an alcoholic beverage, but saw many patrons served with alcoholic beverages. The license fee for a bottle club is $500. The license fee for an alcoholic beverage license is $1820.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 561.12 and imposing an administrative fine of $1320. ENTERED on October 9, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 9, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nicholas Lukacovic 2902 Southwest 30th Street Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Nicholas Lukacovic Diamond Investigations 1314 Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 203 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Nicholas Lukacovic 1714 Southeast 47th Street Cape Coral, Florida 33904 John J. Harris, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a new quota license should be approved or disapproved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On December 17, 1986, the Department processed a preliminary application for a new quota alcoholic beverage license for Broward County which was submitted in the name of Donald Chester Morton. The preliminary application provided, in pertinent part, an affirmation for the applicant and all persons listed which stated: I hereby certify and affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in 837.06 and 559.791, Florida Statutes, that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The preliminary application instructions further stated: Each person listed anywhere on the application must sign affirming that the answers are true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Following notification of being selected, Petitioner filed an application for a new-temporary 3 PS license on August 21, 1987. This temporary license was issued by the Department and was to expire on November 18, 1987. During the period the temporary license was in effect, the Department conducted an investigation which revealed that the original preliminary application had not been signed by the applicant, Donald Chester Morton. Instead, the applicant's father, William Chester Morton, had signed his son's name on that portion of the preliminary application which required an affirmation. Based upon this discovery, the Department issued a Notice of Disapproval on April 25, 1988 The notice provided as follows: As a disapproved applicant you are entitled to a hearing pursuant to 120.57, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Procedure Act, provided you file a written request for an administrative review of this decision within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter. Thereafter, on May 16, 1988, Petitioner filed a request for an administrative review of the decision and alleged the basis to be "Chapter 120.57 of the Florida Statutes." Prior to the submission of the preliminary application Donald Chester Morton had authorized his father to sign the form on his behalf. This authorization was given in a telephone conversation when the younger Morton determined he could not, due to work scheduling, file the preliminary application for himself. The senior Morton also filed a preliminary application in his own behalf. Coincidentally, both Mortons were chosen for quota licenses. Prior to the submission of the preliminary application in the name of Donald Morton, no written power of attorney was executed. William Chester Morton, acting on the verbal instructions from his son, signed the preliminary application. All information on the preliminary application, other than the affirmation, was true and correct. Neither Morton notified the Department of the manner in which the preliminary application had been executed. The facts regarding the father signing for his son came out during the background investigation of the license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Bureau of Licensing and Records enter a final order disapproving Petitioner's application for a new quota beverage license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 11th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2924 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are rejected as a recitation of the proceedings, argument, or commentary which have not been set forth in a form which allows specific rulings to be made. The following facts gleaned from the discussion offered by Petitioner are accepted: That William C. Morton had no interest in the license acquired by the applicant, Donald C. Morton. That Donald C. Morton took all steps to comply with the Department's regulations regarding the temporary license. That William C. Morton was verbally authorized to sign the preliminary application for his son. It is the policy of the Department to require an applicant to personally sign the preliminary application although the rule does not specifically prohibit execution by verbal power of attorney or agency. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1,2, and 3 are accepted. While the exact date is uncertain from the record, the fact that during the investigation it was discovered that Morton's father executed the preliminary application is accepted. Consequently, that portion of paragraph 4 which makes that assertion is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted. With the exception of the date, paragraph 6 is accepted. See the comment to paragraph 4 above. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the resolution of the issue of this case. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond A. Doumar ALLSWORTH DOUMAR CAZEL CURTIS & CROSS 1177 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1197 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Did the licensee repeatedly sell alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21?
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jayprakash Patel, d/b/a United Discount Beverage, held alcoholic beverage license number 11-00952, Series 2-APS, for a premises known as United Discount Beverage, each side of U.S. Highway 301, Hawthorne, Florida. Joseph Donnelly, a person under the age of 21, purchased alcoholic beverages on April 27, 1990, to wit: three six packs of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine, without identification at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel, an employee of the business. Joseph P. Donnelly had purchased alcoholic beverages without identification on previous occasions at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel. Madonna Bristow observed Joseph B. Donnelly purchase alcoholic beverages from United Discount Beverages on April 27, 1990 and on several other occasions previous to that date. Mr. Glen Molander observed Joseph P. Donnelly and Madonna Bristow carrying packages from United Discount Beverage on April 27, 1990. A vehicle driven by Joseph P. Donnelly was involved in an automobile accident on April 27, 1990, and was towed to a secured impoundment on that date. His mother, Kathlene L. Donnelly, recovered six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine from the car. Mrs. Donnelly took the beer and wine to her residence where she concealed it. On May 2, 1990, Inv. Jernigan the six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine obtained from the Donnelly's residence. Inv. Jernigan marked these items as evidence and stored in the vault at the Gainesville Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco District Office. Investigator Jernigan identified at hearing the six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine he had recovered from the Donnelly's residence. Joseph P. Donnelly identified this evidence at hearing as a portion of the alcoholic beverages which he had purchased at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel on April 27, 1990. Joseph Donnelly and Madonna Bristow observed many other individuals who they knew to be under twenty-one years old purchase alcoholic beverages from United Discount Beverage without identification. Kirtie B. Patel plead guilty to a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under age 21 in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's exhibit number 1, to wit: underage operative M. Goldtrap on December 14, 1989. Kirtie B. Patel plead nolo contendere to a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under age 21 in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's exhibit number 2, to wit: Joseph P. Donnelly on April 27, 1990. Licensee, Jayprakash Patel, has previously admitted in an administrative proceeding to have been in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a) within Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, to wit: three sales of alcoholic beverages by his employees to persons under the age of 21 during the period May 11, 1989 through December 14, 1989. Jayprakash Patel has become a Responsible Vendor since April 27, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondent, Jayprakash Patel, d/b/a United Discount Beverage, license number 11-00952, Series 2-APS, be suspended for six (6) months and a $1,000.00 civil penalty be imposed. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Haug Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Don Reid Post Office Box 133 Gainesville, FL 32602 Leonard Ivey, 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
Findings Of Fact Millard Futch is presently the district supervisor for District 4, Division of Beverage and formerly district supervisor for District 6, Division of Beverage, at the time the Petitioner made application for an increase in the series of his beverage license. Mr. Futch indicated the reason that the request for increase in series was disapproved, was because that a series 4-COP license is a quota license and that at present all quota licenses in Pinellas County, Florida are held by other license holders, either as active licenses or licenses under administrative restraint. Therefore, as of the date of the hearing and the date of the request for increase in series, a quota license in Pinellas County was not available. The witness further testified that the 2-COP license being held by the Petitioner enables the Petitioner to sell beer and wine on the premises in package and to sell spiritous liquor for consumption off the premises. The principal difference, according to the witness between 2-COP license and the increase series 4-COP license was that 4-COP license would allow the consumption of spiritous liquors on the premises. The witness indicated that the only available methods for the Petitioner to receive a 4-COP license was for other quota licenses to be authorized at the time of the completion of the 1980 federal census. It was stated that upon the completion of that census the Petitioner together with other applicants could apply for such additional quota licenses as would be authorized by the increase in population in Pinellas County, Florida. It was also indicated that the possibility would be available for the Petitioner to purchase an existing quota license in Pinellas County, Florida, if the Petitioner was otherwise qualified under the guidelines of the Division of Beverage. Finally the witness, Mr. Futch, did not indicate any further reason for the disapproval of the increase in series as applied for by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, after hearing the testimony offered by Mr. Futch in explanation of the Respondent's position, declined to make any presentation in his own behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the facts as presented in the course of the hearing, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Walter Booze, t/a HobNob Tavern be denied his request for an increase in series of his beverage license from one of 2-COP to 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Booze 318 North Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33515 William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner originally held alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP, as an individual. He transferred this license to M & S, Inc., a Florida corporation, about one year ago. Petitioner is a 50 percent shareholder in this corporation. Jimmy G. Maddox holds the other 50 percent stock interest. Petitioner and Maddox are currently engaged in civil litigation involving the corporate licensee. Respondent referred to this civil suit in its notice disapproving the transfer application, citing the pending litigation as a basis for disapproval. Petitioner has not purchased the license from the corporation or entered into any agreement in contemplation of license transfer. Rather, he believes he is entitled to the return of the license because he received no consideration for the prior transfer from either the corporation or Maddox. Alternatively, Petitioner asks that the prior transfer to the corporation be set aside due to this lack of consideration.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 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 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Fischette, Esquire Suite 1916 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert T. Sussman, Esquire 3030 Independent Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
