ROBBIE'S YUM YUM TREE WEST, INC., ET AL., PETITIONER,
v.
DIVISION OF BEVERAGE, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robbie's Yum Yum Tree West challenged the revocation of its beverage license by Florida's Division of Beverage after the company allowed a convicted felon to have a financial interest in and work at the licensed premises. The court upheld the license revocation, finding substantial evidence supported the administrative determination and no departure from legal requirements occurred.
The court upheld the license revocation, finding competent, substantial evidence supported the administrative order and no departure from essential legal requirements occurred. The Director properly revoked rather than imposed a mere civil penalty because the prior warning, the substantial financial benefit to the felon, the felon's supervisory responsibilities, and his family relationship to the principal officer established that a lesser penalty would be insufficient to accomplish the purposes of the beverage law.
[1] A beverage license may be revoked for allowing a convicted felon to have a financial interest in the licensed premises.
[2] A beverage license may be revoked for employing a convicted felon in violation of state statutes.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The licensee had, on a previous occasion, admitted charges and paid a penalty for the presence of the undisclosed interest of Robert Llewelyn on the premises some two years earlier. With this warning, the licensee nevertheless continued to operate in such fashion that in hearing on the present charges, the Examiner found and concluded and we hereby find that the undisclosed interested person, Robert Llewelyn, now convicted of a felony, had received through the business some $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars), was responsible for the critical function of supervision of the employees in the entertainment business of the establishment, and is related as a son to the principle officer of the corporation.”
Establishes the Director's finding of aggravating circumstances that justified license revocation despite prior warning
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner held a beverage license and was previously warned about allowing Robert Llewellyn, a convicted felon, to have an undisclosed financial inte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Review cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Acting Chief Judge.
This is a petition for certiorari (administrative review) to the respondent Division of Beverage, Department of Business Regulation, from an amended order of the Director of the Division of Beverage revoking petitioner’s beverage license and an order of the Board of Business Regulation quashing petitioner’s administrative appeal to that body.
The proceedings before the Director were pursuant' to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes 1973 (the old Administrative Procedure Act) and § 561.29, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was charged and found by the hearing officer (designated by the Division to conduct the hearing) to have allowed a convicted felon, one Robert Llewellyn, to have a financial interest in the licensed premises in violation of Sections 561.15 and 561.17, Florida Statutes, and was charged and found to have employed said Robert Llewellyn, a convicted felon in violation of Sections 561.29 and 562.13, Florida Statutes. The hearing officer recommended that “a civil penalty of $750 be assessed against the licensee or in lieu of the civil penalty that the license be suspended for a period of 20 days, and further order that Robert Llewellyn is not to have any control or authority whatsoever with the day-to-day operations of the premises.” The Director of the Division of Beverage approved and adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact, but disagreed with his recommendation of penalty, stating as follows:
“The licensee had, on a previous occasion, admitted charges and paid a penalty for the presence of the undisclosed interest of Robert Llewelyn on the premises some two years earlier. With this warning, the licensee nevertheless continued to operate in such fashion that in hearing on the present charges, the Examiner found and concluded and we hereby find that the undisclosed interested person, Robert Llewelyn, now convicted of a felony, had received through the business some $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars), was responsible for the critical function of supervision of the employees in the entertainment business of the establishment, and is related as a son to the principle officer of the corporation. These facts establish that the recommended penalty of the Hearing Examiner would be insufficient to accomplish the purposes of the beverage law and the duties of this Division in enforcing control over this license holder. The imposition of a mere civil penalty would be insufficient to accomplish those purposes, that penalty being limited by statute to only $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars).”
The Director then revoked the license.
Upon our review of the briefs and record, we find there is competent, substantial evidence to support the order from which review was sought and there was no departure from the essential requirements of law. See Deel Motors, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, Fla.App. (1st), 252 So. 2d 389 (1971), and Powell v. Board of Public Instruction of Levy County, Fla.App. (1st), 229 So. 2d 308 (1970).
Petition dismissed.
MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Powell v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Levy Cnty., 229 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Ragen v. Barone, 252 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Deel Motors, Inc. v. Dep't OF Commerce of the State of Fla., 252 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)