Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Superior Court

DEVINE, P. J.

Writ of prohibition must be granted against further action in an attempted mandamus proceeding in the superior court against the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Section 23090.5 of the Business and Professions Code provides that no court of the state except the

[8]

Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to review, affirm, reverse, correct or annul any decision of the Department. Therefore, the demurrer of the Department, based on lack of jurisdiction of the conrt, should have been sustained.

The effective date of the statute was November 7,

1967.

The superior court proceeding was commenced on March 11, 1968. The petitioner in that proceeding is Elsie R. Biggs, whose on-sale license in Susanville had been revoked after hearing. It is her position, as real party in interest in the present matter before us, that section 23090.5 is not applicable to her ease because the hearing before the hearing officer and the rendering of the decision by the Department were accomplished in March and April, respectively, of 1967 (although the final judgment by the Department was not rendered until section 23090.5 had become effective).

Real Party’s Point One:

That the law, if applied to the Briggs case, would be an ex post facto law.

Decision:

Ex post facto laws are criminal laws only.

(Calder

v.

Bull,

3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 [1 L.Ed. 648]; 1 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed. 1927) p. 541.)

Real Party’s Point Two:

That the statute, if applied to the Briggs case, would deprive her of vested rights.

Decision:

Vested rights are not taken away by mere procedural changes. Thus, the fact that jurisdiction is taken away from a particular court to hear one kind of case does not in itself deprive anyone of a vested right. It has been held that appellate review may be withheld altogether.