H. D. Wallace & Associates, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

FRIEDMAN, Acting P. J. Petitioner H. D. Wallace and Associates, Inc., is the corporate holder of an on-sale general liquor license issued for a bar in Sacramento County. Petitioner William H. Hughes, Jr., is its president and only shareholder. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board affirmed a decision of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control revoking the corporate license but staying the revocation for six months on condition that Mr. Hughes divest himself of ownership of the business and not be employed there in any managerial capacity. This court issued a writ of review and stay order.

At the time the corporation was licensed in 1963, the department was aware that between 1958 and 1961 Mr. Hughes had been convicted four or five times of being drunk in public, twice of misdemeanor drunk driving and twice of [591]being drunk in or about an automobile. In 1964 and 1965 after the license had issued, Mr. Hughes was convicted once oi misdemeanor drunk driving and twice of driving with a sus pended license. Because of this expanded record of offenses, the department conditionally revoked the corporate license in January 1966, but that revocation was permanently stayed when Mr. Hughes successfully completed a one-year probationary period in January 1967. In August 1967 he was again convicted of misdemeanor drunk driving and driving with a suspended license. The present accusation ensued.

The department found that Mr. Hughes ’ “. . . overall arrest record . . . involving the intemperate use of alcoholic beverages, and growing out of arrests for public intoxication, being drunk in or about an automobile, misdemeanor drunk driving, and driving with suspended licenses . . . demonstrated that he is not a fit and proper person to hold an alcoholic beverage license.” The department then found that continuation of the license would be contrary to public welfare and morals within the meaning of article XX, section 22 of the state Constitution and section 24200, subdivision (a), of the Business and Professions Code. It found insufficient evidence that any of Mr. Hughes’ offenses involved moral turpitude.1 In its opinion affirming the department, the Appeals Board observed that Mr. Hughes had “presented impressive evidence as to the reputation of the licensed premises and his conduct in relation thereto. ’ ’

Article XX, section 22, of the state Constitution empowers the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control “in its discretion” to suspend or revoke a license if it determines “for good cause” that its continuation would be contrary to public welfare or morals. The Constitution authorizes similar action when the license holder has violated ' ‘ any law prohibiting conduct involving moral turpitude.” These constitutional delegations of power are restated, in slightly varied terms, by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Business and Professions Code, section 24200. Although the department has discretion to determine whether continuance of a license