Theodoro v. Dept. of Liquor Control, No. 58980

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSEILER; BARDGETT; BARDGETT
Citation527 S.W.2d 350
Docket NumberNo. 58980
Decision Date08 September 1975
PartiesJames D. THEODORO, Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL, State of Missouri, Appellant.

Page 350

527 S.W.2d 350
James D. THEODORO, Respondent,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL, State of Missouri, Appellant.
No. 58980.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
Sept. 8, 1975.

Page 352

G. William Weier, Dearing, Richeson, Roberts & Wegmann, Hillsboro, for respondent.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Michael L. Boicourt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

SEILER, Chief Justice.

This appeal presents issues concerning the governor's power to pardon respondent from the administrative revocation of his license to sell package liquor. This court has jurisdiction by virtue of Art. V, Sec. 3, Mo.Const.1945, in that the case involves the construction of Art. IV, Sec. 7 of the constitution of this state.

In 1967, the Supervisor of Liquor Control revoked respondent's liquor license based on findings that respondent had sold intoxicating beverages on Sunday and had permitted the sale of intoxicating beverages by a minor. That decision was affirmed in circuit court. Thereafter, in 1972, then Governor Warren E. Hearnes issued on a standard pardon form, a document purporting to 'pardon, release, and discharge' respondent from the revocation. 1 Respondent was subsequently issued a new license for the sale of liquor, but upon application for renewal of license, the supervisor advised respondent that the license would not be renewed, the basis for his decision being Sec. 311.06(1), RSMo 1969, which provides inter alia that '. . . no person shall be granted a license or permit hereunder whose license as such dealer has been revoked . . .' The circuit court reversed the decision of the supervisor, who now appeals. We reverse the circuit court and affirm the supervisor's denial of renewal of license.

The pardon power of the governor derives from Art. IV, Sec. 7, Mo.Const.1945, which reads:

'The governor shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper, subject to provisions of law as to the manner of applying for pardons. . . .'

The question thus presented is whether or not the governor is constitutionally empowered to 'pardon' the administrative revocation of respondent's liquor license. It is readily apparent that the language of the above provision, 'after conviction, for all offenses', speaks directly to criminal prosecutions, and in construing the constitution,

Page 353

words are to be taken in accord with their fair intendment and their natural and ordinary meaning. State ex rel. Danforth v. Cason, 507 S.W.2d 405 (Mo. banc 1973).

That differences exist between the criminal process and the administrative process is well settled. It has been held, for example, that the revocation of a liquor license is not a criminal prosecution but is in the nature of a civil proceeding, Crooms v. Ketchum, 379 S.W.2d 580 (Mo.1964), and as such, many rights ordinarily secured to criminal defendants are not available to licensees involved in revocation proceedings, State ex rel. Sansone v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917 (Mo.App.1968). Additionally, the decisions of the Supervisor of Liquor Control will be upheld if supported by competent and substantial evidence, State ex rel. Favazza v. Ketchum, 367 S.W.2d 542 (Mo.1963), and such decisions do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, see 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law, Sec. 392.

We have found only one case, Ex parte Collins, 94 Mo. 22, 6 S.W. 345, 346 (1887) which defines 'after conviction' in the context of Art. IV, Sec. 7, although the definition was not necessary to the decision in that case. It was there stated that "after conviction' . . . means after a return of a verdict of guilty.' The Supervisor of Liquor Control is not authorized to find any person 'guilty' of a violation of the liquor control laws, and in fact, may revoke a license even though the licensee has been acquitted of a criminal charge for the same violation as is made the basis for the revocation, Crooms v. Ketchum, supra, 379 S.W.2d 587.

The power to pardon has been traditionally described in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Guastello v. Department of Liquor Control, No. 59146
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 5, 1976
    ...the fact of conviction was not decided as that issue was not relevant to a decision. Cf: Theodoro v. Department of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. banc Thus, at the time Damiano v. Burge, supra, was decided by the Court of Appeals, Kansas City District, in 1972, there was no controlling......
  • Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Ledbetter, No. SC 91766.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 20, 2012
    ...to work confusion and mischief unless no other [387 S.W.3d 364]reasonable construction is possible.” Theodoro v. Dept. of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350, 353 (Mo. banc 1975). Without an interpretation that imposes a duty to negotiate in good faith, the article I, section 29 right to bargain......
  • Concerned Parents v. Caruthersville School Dist. 18, No. 59626
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1977
    ...are to be taken in accord with their fair intendment and their natural and ordinary meaning". Theodoro v. Department of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350, 352-353 (Mo. banc 1975); State ex rel. Heimberger v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 268 Mo. 598, 188 S.W. 128, 130 (banc 1916......
  • American Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus v. Teasdale, No. 83-1907
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 3, 1984
    ...to take action against those believed to be violating the insurance law. 5 American relies on Theodoro v. Department of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350, 354 (Mo. banc 1975) to support its claim that Teasdale lacked authority to direct a department head to take remedial action. Theodoro simpl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Guastello v. Department of Liquor Control, No. 59146
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 5, 1976
    ...the fact of conviction was not decided as that issue was not relevant to a decision. Cf: Theodoro v. Department of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. banc Thus, at the time Damiano v. Burge, supra, was decided by the Court of Appeals, Kansas City District, in 1972, there was no controlling......
  • Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Ledbetter, No. SC 91766.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 20, 2012
    ...to work confusion and mischief unless no other [387 S.W.3d 364]reasonable construction is possible.” Theodoro v. Dept. of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350, 353 (Mo. banc 1975). Without an interpretation that imposes a duty to negotiate in good faith, the article I, section 29 right to bargain......
  • Concerned Parents v. Caruthersville School Dist. 18, No. 59626
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1977
    ...are to be taken in accord with their fair intendment and their natural and ordinary meaning". Theodoro v. Department of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350, 352-353 (Mo. banc 1975); State ex rel. Heimberger v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 268 Mo. 598, 188 S.W. 128, 130 (banc 1916......
  • American Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus v. Teasdale, No. 83-1907
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 3, 1984
    ...to take action against those believed to be violating the insurance law. 5 American relies on Theodoro v. Department of Liquor Control, 527 S.W.2d 350, 354 (Mo. banc 1975) to support its claim that Teasdale lacked authority to direct a department head to take remedial action. Theodoro simpl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT