ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2002) and S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2002) upon the filing of an application by Petitioner Mi Tierra
Beaufort, Inc., d/b/a Mi Tierra Mexican Restaurant (“Petitioner”), for an on premises beer and wine
permit and sale and consumption (“minibottle”) license for a location at 1101 Highway 170, Beaufort,
South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Revenue (“Department”) denied Petitioner’s
application pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-100(D) (Supp. 2002) on the ground that it believed
the principal of the corporation not to be of good moral character. Upon the request of the
Petitioner, the Department transmitted the case to the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD”)
for a hearing. After the granting of Petitioner’s Motion for an Expedited Hearing, to which the
Respondent did not object, a contested case hearing was held on June 10, 2003, at the offices of the
ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. Upon review of the relevant and probative evidence and
applicable law, the application for an on premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license is
granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony 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:
1.Petitioner seeks an on premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license for a
location at 1101 Highway 170, Beaufort, South Carolina.
2.The Department objects to the Petitioner’s application on the ground that it believes
a principal of the corporation, Juan M. Campos, is not of good moral character, based upon Mr.
Campos’s criminal history. The Department stipulated during the hearing on this matter that the
Petitioner meets all other statutory requirements for an on premises beer and wine permit and
minibottle license, and that the only issue before this tribunal is whether or not Mr. Campos is of good
moral character based on his criminal history. The Department’s main argument is that if Mr.
Campos disrespected the traffic laws of this State, then Mr. Campos cannot be trusted to respect this
State’s laws regulating beer and wine permits and minibottle licenses.
3.Mr. Campos’s criminal history reflects that he has had four convictions for driving
under the influence, as well as several convictions for driving under suspension. Most of the offenses
occurred in 1998 and 1999, with the last offense occurring on June 24, 2000.
4.In 2000 Mr. Campos participated in a nine-month drug and alcohol rehabilitation
program with the South Carolina Department of Corrections, which he successfully completed.
Later, in 2002, Mr. Campos voluntarily completed a 30-day alcohol treatment program at a facility
in Arizona.
5.Mr. Campos testified at the hearing that he went through a period of time in the past
in which he had a problem with drinking too much alcohol. However, Mr. Campos testified that he
has not consumed any alcoholic beverages in the past two years and that he regularly attends
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
6.Mr. Campos does not currently have a driver’s license. His driver’s license has been
suspended until 2005. He therefore no longer drives himself, but rather depends upon a driver
employed by his restaurant, as well as his family and friends, for rides.
7.At the hearing on this matter, Mr. Campos’s attorney submitted four letters in support
of Mr. Campos’s application. The letters were admitted into evidence without objection from the
Department. The letters were written by: Beaufort County Sheriff P. J. Tanner; Representative Bill
Herbkersman, who represents District No. 118 - Beaufort County; Mayor Thomas D. Peeples, of
Hilton Head Island; and Beaufort County Councilwoman Starletta Hairston. Each letter indicated
the author’s familiarity with Mr. Campos and support of his application. Most significantly, counsel
for Mr. Campos stated that Sheriff Tanner was aware of Mr. Campos’s criminal history at the time
that he wrote his letter in support of Mr. Campos’s application (Mr. Campos’s criminal history was
in fact provided by the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office).
8.Mr. Campos is also a principal of two other corporations, Mi Tierra Mexican Food,
Inc., which operates a restaurant in Hilton Head Island, and Mi Tierra Bluffton, Inc., which operates
a restaurant in Bluffton. Mr. Campos applied for and was granted beer and wine permits and
minibottle licenses for both of those establishments in the past. Mr. Campos has maintained his
permit and licence at the Hilton Head Island restaurant for seven years and at the Bluffton restaurant
for four years. None of those permits or licenses have been revoked, and no violations of the South
Carolina alcohol and alcoholic beverages laws have occurred at either location.
9.Mr. Campos opened his restaurant at the location which is the subject of this action
on September 30, 2002. He applied for and was granted a beer and wine permit and minibottle
license from September 2002 until February 2003 at this location. Due to an inadvertant error in his
application, however, he had to reapply for the permit and license. Only when he reapplied did the
Department raise its objections to his moral character. During the time Mr. Campos has operated the
subject establishment, he has had no violations and no problems with law enforcement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1.S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2002) grants jurisdiction to the ALJD to hear
contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann.
§ 61-2-260 (Supp. 2002) grants the ALJD the responsibilities to determine contested matters
governing alcoholic beverages, beer, and wine.
2.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-100 (Supp. 2002), which contains general provisions regarding
persons entitled to be licensees or permitees under Title 61 (Alcohol and Alcoholic Beverages) of the
Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976, provides, in relevant part:
(D) The department may not issue a license or permit under this title to any person
unless the person and all principals are of good moral character.
3.The factual determination of whether or not an application is granted or denied is
usually the sole prerogative of the executive agency charged with rendering that decision. Palmer v.
S.C. ABC Comm’n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). As the trier of fact, an
administrative law judge is authorized to determine the fitness of an applicant for alcohol permits and
licenses using broad but not unbridled discretion. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm’n, 281 S.C.
566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). It is also the fact finder’s responsibility to judge the demeanor
and credibility of witnesses and determine the relevance and weight of any testimony and evidence
offered.
4.“Conviction of a crime does not, under all circumstances, constitute ineligibility for
a license, especially where the offense is not a crime involving moral turpitude . . . . In evaluating an
applicant’s fitness, consideration must be given to the circumstances of any conviction record as well
as to the extent to which rehabilitation has occurred.” 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 105 (1981).
Neither driving under the influence nor driving under suspension is a crime of moral turpitude. State
v. Hall, 306 S.C. 293, 411 S.E.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Labarge, 275 S.C. 168, 268 S.E.2d
278 (1980).
5.The offenses committed by Mr. Campos are not crimes of moral turpitude. The last
offense occurred three years ago, and since that time Mr. Campos has undergone treatment and
rehabilitation. Mr. Campos has not been charged with a single offense since he completed his
treatment, nor has he imbibed any alcohol since his last treatment. Mr. Campos has held and
continues to hold beer and wine permits and minibottle licenses for two other establishments similar
to the establishment in question without incurring any violations or other law enforcement problems,
thus demonstrating his ability and intent to comply with the laws and regulations governing the
issuance of alcohol permits and licenses. Although Mr. Campos has a criminal record evidencing
offenses that occurred three years and more ago, there is not adequate evidence to show that he now
lacks sufficient moral character to hold an on premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license.
In coming to this conclusion, I place great weight on the letter from Sheriff Tanner, who is aware of
Mr. Campos’s prior driving under the influence and driving under suspension convictions and
supports Mr. Campos’s application for a beer and wine permit and minibottle license for this location.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s application for an on premises beer and
wine permit and sale and consumption (“minibottle”) license for a location at 1101 Highway 170,
Beaufort, South Carolina, is GRANTED;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
June 10, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
