Ledbetter v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Com'n

• Decision Date: 25 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. 68138,68138
• Citation: 1988 OK 117,764 P.2d 172
• Parties: Guy Thomas LEDBETTER, Appellee, v. OKLAHOMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LAWS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION, Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 172

764 P.2d 172

1988 OK 117

Guy Thomas LEDBETTER, Appellee, v. OKLAHOMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LAWS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION, Appellant.

No. 68138.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 25, 1988.

As Corrected Dec. 5, 1988.

Appeal from the District Court of Carter County; Woodrow George, trial judge.

Guy Thomas Ledbetter, a mixed beverage club licensee, after receiving an adverse decision from the Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission, a state agency, endorsing the Report of a Hearing Officer which recommended imposition of a five hundred dollar ($500.00) civil fine, for licensee's employee selling alcoholic beverage to an intoxicated person, filed a Petition for Appeal pursuant to the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (OAPA), 75 O.S.1981, § 318, with the District Court in and for Carter County, State of Oklahoma. Licensee did not seek any type of appeal to the ABLE Commission, the administrative body charged with the overall enforcement of the alcoholic beverage laws of the State and control over licensee's activities. The District Court overruled a Motion to Dismiss filed by ABLE Commission based upon the jurisdictional grounds that licensee had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the decision of the Director was not a final order subject to appeal under the OAPA. The District Court went on to reach the merits of the dispute and relying on certain defenses raised by licensee, declared invalid and ordered vacated the decision of Director. Held: The District Court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the matter and in reaching the merits of the defenses raised by licensee because licensee had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as provided by statute and the decision of the Director was not a final order subject to appeal under the OAPA.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER ORDER DISMISSING APPELLEE'S PETITION FOR APPEAL.

Lynn Barnett, Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Alcoholic Laws Enforcement Com'n and

Nancy L. Childers, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Derril W. McGuire, Ardmore, for appellee.

LAVENDER, Justice:

In 1985, the Fortieth Legislature of Oklahoma promulgated sweeping amendments and additions to the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, (hereafter Act) 37 O.S.1981, § 502 et seq., as amended by 1985 Okla.Sess.Laws, Ch. 6, § 2 et seq., codified as 37 O.S.Supp.1985, § 502 et seq. The primary impetus behind these amendments and additions was the passage of State Question 563, adopted at an election held September 18, 1984, which repealed OKLA. CONST. art. 27, §§ 1-11, and resulted in the adoption of OKLA. CONST. art. 28, §§ 1-11. ¹ State Question 563 was commonly referred to as the "Liquor by the Drink" question.

The Act promulgated by the Legislature is a comprehensive one, regulating virtually every aspect of the alcoholic beverage industry in the State, including the manufacture, sale, importation into or exportation from Oklahoma of such beverages. See 37 O.S.Supp.1987, §§ 504 and 505. The Act includes within its ambit the licensure and regulation of mixed beverage club establishments, those conventional establishments allowed to sell liquor by the drink. ² 37 O.S.Supp.1987 § 518(9). Guy Thomas Ledbetter, (hereafter Appellee or Ledbetter) as president of J.M.G., Inc., doing business as The Edge in Ardmore, Oklahoma, holds mixed club license number 56404. As a licensee Appellee is subject to the provisions of the Act and to potential civil fines, suspension or revocation of his license for violating the provisions of the Act or rules adopted by the Appellant, the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission (hereafter Appellant or ABLE Commission). See 37 O.S.Supp.1987, § 528. Appellant is the body generally charged with enforcement of the alcoholic beverage laws of Oklahoma. OKLA. CONST. art. 28, § 1. In addition to civil fines against a licensee, or suspension or revocation of a license, the Act contains criminal penalties in the form of imprisonment and/or fine for the committing of certain enumerated acts. 37 O.S.Supp.1987, § 538.

To assist it in carrying out its mission to enforce the provisions of the Act, ABLE Commission was required by the Legislature to appoint a Director, the principal administrative officer of the agency. 37 O.S.Supp.1987, § 508. Both ABLE Commission and its Director were given by the Legislature certain specific duties, powers and functions. For the purposes of disposition of this appeal, the powers and duties of the Director are contained in 37 O.S.Supp.1987, § 508 and § 509 and those of the ABLE Commission at 37 O.S.Supp.1987, § 508, § 514, § 528, § 529 and § 530.

The instant case comes before this Court to review the January 5, 1987 Order of the District Court of Carter County that declared invalid and ordered vacated a March 20, 1986 Order of the Director (erroneously denominated Order of the Commission) and which overruled Appellant's Motion to Dismiss Appellee's Petition for Appeal to the District Court. As noted, the Petition for Appeal was from the March 20, 1986 decision of the Director. Said decision had endorsed the recommendation of a hearing officer that Appellee be fined five hundred dollars ($500.00) for a violation of 37 O.S.Supp.1985 § 538(D), which in pertinent part provides a misdemeanor criminal penalty for selling an alcoholic beverage to any person not entitled to purchase or receive same. ³ In that we have determined that Appellee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before ABLE Commission we reverse the Order of the District Court. In addition, because the Director had no statutory authority to enter a final order imposing a civil fine against Ledbetter for violation of any provision of the Act and, as far as the record before us discloses, ABLE Commission had neither delegated such authority to the Director consistent with the Act, nor taken any action in relation to the decision of the Director, the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from what, in essence, amounted to nothing more than a recommendation to ABLE Commission from its Director. The endorsement by the Director was not an appealable final order. Thus, the first assignment of error raised by ABLE Commission, relying on these jurisdictional issues, along with the recognition that the Director had no statutory authority to enter a final order imposing a civil fine for violation of provisions of the Act, are deemed dispositive of this appeal and we need not reach the other two assignments of error set forth by Appellant for reversal of the District Court's January 5, 1987 Order. ⁴

After receiving a Notice of Contemplated Suspension or Revocation of License for purported violation of 37 O.S.Supp.1985, § 537(A)(2), Appellee was afforded a hearing before an ABLE Commission hearing officer on March 4, 1986. At the conclusion of the hearing the charge against Appellee was amended without objection, to a violation of 37 O.S.Supp.1985, § 538(D). The hearing officer rendered his Report on March 19, 1986, recommending a fine of five-hundred dollars ($500.00) for violation of § 538(D). On March 20, 1986 the Director executed an "Order of the Commission" affirming the Report of the Hearing Officer in its entirety, and purporting to fine Appellee in the amount of five-hundred dollars ($500.00). The "Order" also indicated that if the fine were not paid by April 25, 1986 or appealed by that date his license would be revoked. Finally, the "Order" indicated it would become final fifteen (15) days after it was received by Appellee, unless timely appealed. The Report of the Hearing Officer and the "Order" were received by Appellee on March 22, 1986. Instead of requesting a hearing before the ABLE Commission pursuant to 37 O.S.Supp.1985, § 529 or § 530 to challenge the decision of the Director, Appellee filed his Petition for Appeal in the District Court on April 3, 1986. Appellee appears to argue, as he did in the District Court, that no further appeal to ABLE Commission was provided to test the imposition of a fine, but apparently only to challenge the propriety of revocation or suspension. He also tells us that the decision of the Director was on behalf of the ABLE Commission apparently because it was erroneously labeled "Order of the Commission" and that the Order, itself, indicated it would become final within fifteen (15) days unless timely appealed. ⁵ Appellee misconstrues the statutory scheme, as relevant here, in regard to appealing an adverse decision of the Director to the ABLE Commission whether the decision of the Director specifies a civil fine, suspension or revocation as the penalty for violating the Act. Further, the Act itself provides a mandatory right to be heard by the full ABLE Commission and, therefore, notwithstanding any ambiguities in the March 20, 1986 Order or the then applicable rules of the ABLE Commission, the Appellee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to initiating the proceeding in the District Court.

37 O.S.Supp.1987, § 529 contains provisions for notifying an applicant for an original license that same is being denied in the case of a license holder that their license will not be renewed or of contemplated or proposed suspension or revocation of a license. In the case of a proposed suspension or revocation the hearing based upon such a notice shall not be held less than fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing, delivery or posting said notice. This initial hearing phase can be delegated to the Director or his assistants for the taking of evidence, but any person aggrieved by any order or decision issued by the Director is given a statutory right to be heard by the ABLE Commission, the Commission cannot deny this right and it is under a legislative mandate to set up procedures to protect the right of aggrieved persons to exercise this right of appeal to the ABLE Commission. § 529 and 37 O.S.Supp.1987, § 508. ⁶

Although § 529...