Case Title: Naibauer v. Board of Platte County Com'rs

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-05-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Naibauer v. Board of Platte County Com'rs1995 WY 69895 P.2d 445Case Number: 94-229Decided: 05/11/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Roland 
D. NAIBAUER and Cathie Bennett, d/b/a Shamrock Station, Appellants 
(Petitioners),

v.

BOARD OF PLATTE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Appellee 
(Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Platte County, Barton R. Voigt, J

Bruce A. Hellbaum of Jones, 
Jones, Vines & Hunkins, Wheatland, for appellants.

Douglas W. Weaver, Asst. 
Platte County and Pros. Atty., Wheatland, for appellees.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Chief Justice.

[¶1]      We review an 
order of the district court which affirmed the decision of the Board of County 
Commissioners of Platte County (Board) denying renewal of the retail liquor 
license held by Roland D. Naibauer and Catherine Bennett, d/b/a Shamrock Station 
(Naibauer).

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Naibauer and the 
Board agree these are the issues:

I.          
Was the decision of the Board denying renewal of the liquor license 
arbitrary and capricious?

II.          
Was the decision of the Board denying renewal of the liquor license 
unsupported by substantial evidence as presented at the 
hearing?

III.         Was 
the decision of the Board denying renewal of the liquor license contrary to 
law?

[¶4]      The proceedings 
began with the Board's December 27, 1993, notice to Naibauer that renewal of his 
liquor license would be publicly advertised and then heard before the Board on 
February 15, 1994. Before the hearing, the Board was informed by the County 
Attorney of Platte County that, by judgment entered on September 3, 1993, 
Naibauer had been found guilty of one count of furnishing liquor to a minor in 
violation of WYO. STAT. § 12-6-101(a) (Supp. 1994), and that, on December 22, 
1993, upon his plea of no contest, Naibauer was found guilty of a second such 
charge. The Board received copies of the convictions.

[¶5]      At its February 
15, 1994, hearing, the Board received several objections to the renewal of 
Naibauer's liquor license. The objections focused on allegations that he had 
sold liquor to minors. Naibauer did not appear at that hearing; therefore, the 
Board informed Naibauer, by letter dated February 15, 1994, that a further 
hearing would be held on February 25, 1994, concerning renewal of his liquor 
license.

[¶6]      It is evident 
from the transcript of the hearings that the Board had never before encountered 
opposition to the renewal of a liquor license and, thus, there was considerable 
uncertainty exactly how to proceed. The proceedings were informal, witnesses 
were not sworn, nor was documentary evidence received by offer and admission. 
Neither Naibauer nor his counsel objected to the adequacy of the notice of the 
hearing or to the informality of the proceedings. 

[¶7]      At the hearing, 
three parents stated their minor children had purchased liquor from Naibauer. 
One of those parents also reported that she had witnessed Naibauer selling 
liquor to a minor. In addition, the Board stated on the record that it had 
received considerable correspondence, as well as telephone calls, in opposition 
to renewal of Naibauer's license and that the correspondence was available at 
the hearing.

[¶8]      In his statement 
to the Board, Naibauer essentially denied he had sold liquor to minors. Eleven 
witnesses testified in favor of renewal of Naibauer's license. Those witnesses 
related that they had never seen Naibauer sell liquor to minors and/or they had 
seen him refuse to sell to minors who were attempting to buy liquor. They also 
testified the Shamrock Station was an important element of their rural 
community1, providing a telephone in 
emergencies, a gathering place for area residents, shelter in inclement weather, 
and provisions (food, beverages, gasoline, etc.) for travelers and residents in 
the area. Liquor sales constituted approximately 80% of the Shamrock Station's 
gross sales. The Board also received many letters supporting renewal of 
Naibauer's liquor license.

[¶9]      At the conclusion 
of the hearing, a Board member made this motion: "Mr. Chairman, with regret, but 
based upon the two convictions that we have before us, I will move for a denial 
of the liquor license for Shamrock Station." The motion was seconded and passed. 
In its written findings, the Board concluded that the welfare of persons 
residing in the vicinity of the Shamrock Station would be adversely and 
seriously affected by renewal of Naibauer's license and that the purposes of 
TITLE 12 of the Wyoming Statutes (Alcoholic Beverages) would not be carried out 
by renewal. WYO. STAT. § 12-4-104(b)(i) and (ii) (1986).

[¶10]   Upon Naibauer's petition for review 
of the Board's action, the district court determined that the decision was based 
on substantial evidence and the denial of renewal was not arbitrary, capricious, 
or an abuse of discretion, nor otherwise unlawful.

[¶11]   Naibauer contends the Board's 
decision not to renew his liquor license is unsupported by substantial evidence, 
especially in light of "the bundle of rights" associated with renewal of a 
retail liquor license. See WYO. STAT. § 12-4-104(c), (e) and (f) (1986); Sterner 
v. U.S., 774 P.2d 639, 642 (Wyo. 1989); United States v. Skirko, 631 F. Supp. 790 (D.Wyo. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 878 F.2d 340 (10th Cir. 1989); City 
of Evanston v. Whirl Inn, Inc., 647 P.2d 1378 (Wyo. 1982); Whitesides v. Council 
of City of Cheyenne, 78 Wyo. 80, 319 P.2d 520 (Wyo. 1957); E.H. SCHOPLER, 
ANNOTATION, Grant or Renewal of Liquor License as Affected by Fact that 
Applicant Held such License in the Past, 2 A.L.R.2d 1239 (1948 and Later Case 
Service). The "right" to renewal of a license is, however, conditioned upon the 
statutory criteria. WYO. STAT. § 12-4-104(b)(i)-(v) (1986). The standard of 
review we employ under these circumstances is summarized in Earlywine v. 
Peterson, 885 P.2d 861, 863 (Wyo. 1994). Applying that standard, we hold that 
the Board had before it substantial evidence, both in the form of copies of 
convictions and statements of interested citizens corroborating those 
convictions, that Naibauer had sold liquor to minors. That evidence constitutes 
a proper basis for denying renewal of the retail liquor license. WYO. STAT. § 
12-7-101 (1986); and see Glenn v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Sheridan County, 440 P.2d 1 (Wyo. 1968).

[¶12]   Naibauer asserts that the evidence 
the Board relied upon is not the type of information prudent persons would rely 
on in conducting their serious affairs. WYO. STAT. § 16-3-108(a) (1990). He 
centers that contention on the lack of any direct evidence from the minors who 
purchased liquor from Naibauer. Hearsay evidence may be received in such an 
administrative proceeding as that at issue. WYO. STAT. § 16-3-108 (1990); Story 
v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 721 P.2d 1013, 1018-20 (Wyo. 1986); and see 
State ex rel. Workers' Comp. v. Rivera, 796 P.2d 447, 451 (Wyo. 1990). The 
hearsay testimony heard by the Board corroborated the unimpeached documentary 
evidence that Naibauer had been convicted of selling liquor to minors. See 
Story, 721 P.2d  at 1018.

[¶13]   Naibauer also asserts there was no 
direct evidence concerning a motor vehicle accident which allegedly involved 
minors who had purchased liquor from him. Further, he adds that no citations 
were issued to the minors involved in that accident, nor were any citations 
issued to Naibauer. No objection was made to that testimony, nor is there any 
indication the Board considered that evidence as a part of the basis for its 
decision. He now protests that a witness stated that Naibauer "probably" sold to 
her son and that such testimony is unreliable. No objection was made at the 
time.

[¶14]   Naibauer complains that the Board 
heard evidence from persons who did not reside in the "vicinity"2 where the Shamrock Station is 
located; indeed, only one person opposing the renewal did live in that 
"vicinity." No such objection was made at the hearing. In addition, Naibauer 
focuses on the testimony of those who lived in the vicinity of Shamrock Station, 
concluding that, except for one person, all favored renewal of the license. 
Naibauer did not challenge below the proposition that the Board did not properly 
limit its consideration and/or construction of the term 
"vicinity."

[¶15]   Naibauer contends the Board should 
not have considered his no contest plea to the second charge of selling liquor 
to a minor. At the hearing, no objection was made to the Board's consideration 
of that plea and conviction3. Naibauer's failure to object to 
the proceedings or to the information conveyed to the Board by witnesses 
operates as a waiver of those issues on appeal and we will not further consider 
them. Earlywine, 885 P.2d  at 863; Roberts v. Employment Security Comm'n, 745 P.2d 1355, 1359 (Wyo. 1987); Trout v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 
721 P.2d 1047, 1053-54 (Wyo. 1986); and see Loyal Order of Moose Lodge No. 1473 
v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 95 Ohio App.3d 109, 641 N.E.2d 1182, 1185 (1994); Hall 
v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 631 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Ala. Civ. App. 
1993).

[¶16]   We agree with the conclusions of 
the district court: When the information presented to the Board is considered as 
a whole, it cannot be concluded that the determination not to renew the liquor 
license was unsupported by substantial evidence or that it was arbitrary, 
capricious or an abuse of discretion. Sheridan Race Car Ass'n v. Rice Ranch, 864 P.2d 30, 32 (Wyo. 1993); Hall, 631 So. 2d  at 1048.

[¶17]   Naibauer contends he was not given 
notice of the hearing in a form which conforms to WYO. STAT. § 16-3-113(a). We 
hold that the notice was adequate, especially in view of his failure to object 
or to seek a continuance. White v. Board of Trustees of Western Wyoming 
Community College Dist., 648 P.2d 528, 535-37 (Wyo. 1982); Glenn, 440 P.2d  at 4; 
and compare Devous v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 845 P.2d 408, 416-17 (Wyo. 
1993). Moreover, it is evident from the record that Naibauer was fully aware of 
the purpose and import of the February 25, 1994, hearing and he has not 
demonstrated any prejudice or harm because of the defective notice. Palmer v. 
Crook County School Dist. 1, 785 P.2d 1160, 1163 (Wyo. 
1990).

[¶18]   Naibauer complains that the Board 
did not make acceptable findings. It is evident from the record as a whole that 
the Board found that the license should not be renewed because of Naibauer's 
convictions for sale of liquor to minors. As noted above, we hold those findings 
are supported by substantial evidence and are otherwise adequate under WYO. 
STAT. § 16-3-110 (1990).

[¶19]   The district court's order 
upholding the Board's nonrenewal of Naibauer's retail liquor license is 
affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 The Shamrock Station is located on 
Highway 34, about 25 miles southwest of Wheatland.

2 WYO. STAT. § 12-4-104(b)(i) (1986) 
provides that a liquor license shall not be renewed if the licensing authority 
finds: "The welfare of the people residing in the vicinity of the proposed 
license or permit premises shall be adversely and seriously 
affected[.]"

3 Naibauer's counsel did argue that the 
plea "is not an admission of guilt" and, therefore, could not be considered by 
the Board as a factor in renewal. A nolo contendere plea is an admission of all 
the essential elements of the crime charged and, when reduced to judgment, is a 
conviction. Ochoa v. State, 848 P.2d 1359, 1361-62 (Wyo. 1993) (collecting 
cases). Naibauer did not object on the basis that the conviction could not be 
used against him in a civil action and we do not decide that question. But see 
In Re A-J-C, Inc., 42 Pa. Commw. 582, 401 A.2d 421, 422 (1979); C.T. DRECHSLER, 
ANNOTATION, Plea of Nolo Contendere or Non Vult Contendere, 89 A.L.R.2d 540, 
esp. § 45 (1963 and Later Case Service).