Munro v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1958 |
| Citation | 330 P.2d 642 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Russell S. MUNRO, Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State of California, Petitioner and Respondent, v. The ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL APPEALS BOARD of the State of California and Ronald C. Chaney, Defendants, The Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board of the State of California, Appellant. * Civ. 22200. |
Edsel W. Haws, Sacramento, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Edward M. Belasco, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appeal by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board from a judgment ordering that a writ of mandate issue commanding it to set aside its decision by which it reversed a decision of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and to affirm the decision of the department which denied the transfer of an on-sale general license to Ronald C. Chaney.
On June 29, 1955, Chaney filed an application with the department for the transfer NOTE--Some parts of this form are wider than one screen. To view
to him of an on-sale general alcoholic beverage license. In support of his application he filed an affidavit on a form furnished by the department which stated:
material that exceeds the width of this screen, use the right arrow
key. To return to the original screen, use the left arrow key.
Have you ever been arrested?___. If the answer is 'yes' state below
in your own handwriting ANY and ALL arrests:
Date: Place Arrested: Charged With: Disposition
_____ _______________ _____________ ____________
1946 Hollywood Fight Prob
____ _________ _____ ____
An investigation of the application was made by an agent of the department. In his report the agent stated that Chaney did not list in his application an arrest on June 11, 1949, at Memphis, Tennessee, for which he served sixty days at a penal farm and was fined $10. The application was denied.
Chaney then petitioned the department for a hearing. A hearing officer conducted a hearing on the issue After the hearing, he made these findings of fact:
'1. The records of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, State of California, reflect the following arrests and dispositions thereof for Ronald Creighton Chaney:
'6-11-49 PD Memphis Tenn. 45221 Inv. (Larc.)
On these facts the hearing officer determined: and recommended that the petition be denied. The recommendation was adopted by the department. Chaney's petition for reconsideration was denied.
Chaney filed an appeal from the decision of the department with the appeals board. The board reversed the decision of the department on the grounds: the findings do not support the decision denying the license; there was no finding that Chaney knowingly or purposely omitted the fact of an arrest, the finding being that there was a failure to include or mention the arrest; for all that appeared, the omission was unintentional, resulting from an honest mistake or negligence; the evidence would not support such a finding had one been made; on questioning, Chaney openly and frankly admitted the arrest and fully disclosed all the circumstances surrounding it; Chaney testified it was his belief that only arrests occurring in California were required to be listed, and had he understood the application more clearly he would have listed the arrest; there was nothing in the record to show that he was given information by departmental personnel contrary to his erroneous impression as to what was required.
The appeals board concluded that the unintentional or careless omission of the arrest does not constitute good cause under section 22 of article XX of the Constitution on which to base the denial of the license, and reversed the decision of the department.
The director of the department then filed in the superior court a petition for a writ of mandate to compel the appeals board to reverse its decision and for a writ of mandate or certiorari directing the appeals board to affirm the decision of the department. An alternative writ of mandate issued. The appeals board filed a return. The court found: there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the hearing officer; the department correctly determined that Chaney misrepresented a material fact on his application, and that the transfer of a license to him would be contrary to public welfare and morals under section 22, article XX, of the Constitution; the decision of the appeals board was arbitrary and unreasonable in that it substituted its own discretion for that of the department; the appeals board incorrectly determined the issues in the matter in that the findings of the hearing officer and the department were supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record; the suppression by Chaney of the 1949 arrest constituted good cause for the denial of his application. 1
Judgment followed ordering that a writ of mandate issue commanding the appeals board to set aside its decision and render a new decision affirming the decision of the department. The appeals board has appealed from the judgment. 2
Speaking of the judgment in the present case, the Supreme Court in Munro v. Alcoholic Beverage, etc., Appeals Bd., 50 Cal.2d 863, 326 P.2d 506, 507, stated:
'[T]he effect of the judgment is a determination that, as a matter of law, the appeals board could properly act in only one way (affirmance) and that its contrary action was without or in excess of its jurisdiction.'
The evidence before the hearing officer was without conflict that the omission to list the 1949 arrest was unintentional. Chaney testified the reason he omitted to list that arrest was:
'I just thought it was a State license. I should have understood the application more plainly and I just didn't put it down. * * *
'Q. And you testified, I believe, earlier, that when you filled out this affidavit, it was your understanding that the arrest that they were inquiring, wanting to know about arrests here in the State of California, because you were applying for a State license? A. That is true.
'Q. You signed this in front of Miss Dolores Blair? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Do you recall her making any statement to you as to arrests in other states or federal arrests? A. No, not in other states. She had asked me if I ever been arrested, however----
The affidavit filed with the application is all in typewriting with the exception of '1946 Hollywood Flight Prob' and Chaney's signature; a Miss Blair in the office of the department typewrote it.
Chaney is married and has three children. He was 18 years of age at the time of the 1949 incident. Concerning that incident, he testified:
'Q. I call your attention to the date June 11, 1949 and ask whether you were arrested by the Memphis, Tennessee, Police Department on that date? A. Yes, I was.
'Q. What was the charge? A. Well, it was larceny.
'Q. Would you like to explain what happened; the circumstances surrounding this arrest? A. Yes, sir. Another fellow and I, we stole a fan, and we were arrested trying to pawn it.
'Q. And were you tried? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. And what was the disposition? A. Sixty days.
Since 1949 he has resided in Borrego Springs, San Diego County, and has not been arrested or in trouble of any kind. For three years he engaged in carpentry work and a construction business. After that he managed a country club in Borrego Springs. A number of letters were introduced in evidence, all attesting to the fact that he has led a model life following his boyhood indiscretions. There was no contradiction of this evidence.
The Constitution provides that the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall have the exclusive power, except as therein provided and in accordance with the laws enacted by the Legislature, to license the sale of alcoholic beverages in this state. The department has the power, in its discretion, to deny a license if it shall determine 'for good cause' that the granting of such license would be contrary to public welfare or morals. Const. art. XX, § 22, as amended in 1956.
When any person aggrieved thereby appeals from a decision of the department denying a license for the sale of alcoholic beverages, the appeals board ...
To continue reading
Request your trial