ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) and
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1994) for a hearing pursuant to the application of Tina
D. Hicks. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 102508) for a store
located at 3912 North Center Road, outside the city of Hartsville, Darlington County, South
Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestants, a hearing was held at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. Four protestants of record
appeared to protest the application of Tina D. Hicks. Only one protestant, Sharon Griggs, moved
to intervene as a party. Petitioner objected to this motion for intervention, and the objection was
sustained pursuant to ALJD Rule 20. The on-premises beer and wine permit for a location at
3912 North Center Road, Hartsville, Darlington County, South Carolina is hereby denied.
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. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 102508) for a store
located at 3912 North Center Road, Hartsville, Darlington County, South Carolina.
2. The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation's ("Department") file
was made a part of the record, by reference, without objection.
3. The proposed location is situated in a rural area.
4. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
5. The proposed location is leased to the applicant by Willie Vinson.
6. Notice of the application appeared in The Hartsville Messenger, 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.
7. Several protestants testified in opposition to the issuance of a beer and wine permit
to the applicant.
8. The applicant, Tina D. Hicks, and her mother operate and manage the proposed
location.
9. The applicant has never held a beer and wine permit or other license for the sale or
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
10. The applicant is 25 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of South
Carolina, and has maintained her 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.
11. The applicant was convicted of shoplifting on April 9, 1991.
12. The applicant answered Question # 23 of her application falsely by indicating that
she had never been "arrested, taken into custody, charged, paid a fine, or posted bond for
allegedly violating any law in this state in the past twenty years."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976
Code, as amended, authorizes the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this
case.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1994) establishes the criteria for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320(1) (Supp. 1994) provides that in order to obtain and
maintain a beer and wine permit, the holder must be of good moral character. This section
provides that no permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine may be issued, unless "the applicant,
any partner or co-shareholder of the applicant, and each agent, employee, or servant of the
applicant to be employed on the licensed premises, are of good moral character."
4. 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. Att'y. 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 Dept. of Revenue, 773
P.2d 320 (Mont. 1989).
5. It is a generally recognized principle that an alcoholic beverage permit or license
may be refused a person who has been previously convicted of a crime. Wall v. South Carolina
ABC Comm'n, 269 S.C. 13, 235 S.E.2d 806 (1977). The court in Wall also stated: "[w]e need
only to state that a misstatement under oath or a concealment of fact may provide a basis for
denial, as well as revocation, of the type of permit sought by the respondent." Id. at 16, 235
S.E.2d at 808.
6. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-340 (Supp. 1994) provides that ". . . [a]ny misstatement or
concealment of fact in an application shall be sufficient ground for the revocation of the permit
issued by reason of such application." The record is devoid of any evidence which indicates that
the applicant's answer to Question # 23, concerning prior arrests, was an oversight or inadvertent
error.
7. Because of the applicant's 1991 conviction for shoplifting and her misstatement or
concealment on her application of her conviction, the applicant does not meet the good moral
character requirement of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320(1) (Supp. 1994).
8. The applicant does not satisfy all statutory requirements for holding an on-premises beer and wine permit.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Tina D. Hicks for an on-premises beer and wine permit
for a location at 3912 North Center Road, Hartsville, Darlington County, South Carolina is
hereby denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
August 4, 1995 |
