ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-2-260 (Supp. 1998) and 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1998) for a contested-case hearing. Petitioner John D. Hammond applied for an on-premises beer and wine permit for an establishment at Route 1 Box 174-1, Gilmore Road, Mount Croghan, South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Revenue does not oppose Petitioner's application, and pursuant to motion of its counsel, Arlene Hand, the Department was excused from appearing at the hearing.
After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina on April 21, 1999. The application for the on-premises beer and wine permit is hereby denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence.
The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a club located at Route 1, Box 174-1, Gilmore Road, Mount Croghan, South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Revenue's file was made a part of the record by reference without objection. Petitioner leases the location form Gene Burr, and it is situated in a remote, rural area of Chesterfield County. Petitioner currently operates the business as a saddle club and is open Monday through Thursday from 5:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m., Friday from 2:00 p.m.-1:00 a.m., and Saturday from 8:00 a.m.-12:00 a.m.
Petitioner is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and has maintained his principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of making application for an on-premises beer and wine permit. There are no churches, schools, or playgrounds in close proximity to the proposed location.
Notice of the application appeared in The Pageland Progressive-Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed location, for three (3) consecutive weeks and notice was posted at the proposed location for fifteen (15) days.
Petitioner has not had a beer and wine permit or alcoholic beverage license revoked in the last two years. However, Petitioner has an extensive criminal history which includes convictions within the last ten years for writing fraudulent checks, DUI, Open Container, and Failure to Return Rental Property.
The Sheriff's Department objects to the issuance of the permit for three reasons. First, the Sheriff's Department objects because of Petitioner's criminal history. Second, the establishment is located in a remote, rural area, making it difficult to patrol. Third, the Sheriff's Department is undermanned.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following.
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1998) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended, authorize the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 1998) establishes the criteria for the issuance of a beer and wine permit. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520(1) (Supp. 1998) provides that in order to obtain and maintain a beer and wine permit, the holder must be of good moral character.
In South Carolina, there is no single criterion by which to determine whether or not one is possessed of good moral character. 1969 Op. S.C. Atty. Gen. No. 2709 at 159. Generally, good moral character means that one should possess all elements essential to make up that character, such as honesty and veracity . Id.; See also Zemour, Inc. v. State Division of Beverage, 347 So.2d 1102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977); Broers v. Montana Department. of Revenue, 773 P.2d 320 (Mont. 1989). Moral turpitude is "an act of baseness, evilness, or depravity in the private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man or society in general, contrary to the customary and accepted rule of right and duty between man and man." State v. Perry, 294 S.C. 311, 364 S.E.2d 201 (1988). Acts of moral turpitude are antithetical to what is considered good moral character. 1989 OP. S.C. Atty Gen. No. 89-89. Moreover, acts of moral turpitude imply the absence of good moral character. Id. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that fraudulent check writing is a crime of moral turpitude. "Any crime in which fraud is an ingredient is a crime of moral turpitude. . . . A conviction for uttering a 'fraudulent check' by its very terms recognizes that an element of fraud is involved." See State v. Harrison, 298 S.C. 333, 380 S.E.2d 818 (1989) (overruled on other grounds) (citing In re Sipes, 377 S.E.2d 574 (1989); State v. Horton, 271 S.C. 413, 248 S.E.2d 263 (1970). I find that based on Petitioner's convictions for writing fraudulent checks, he does not meet the good moral character requirement of § 61-4-520. Therefore, Petitioner is statutorily precluded from obtaining a beer and wine permit.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
April 23, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |