Case Title: Mitchell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 73, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FRANCIS R. MITCHELL, t/a Bob’s
)  No. 073, 2001
)
Defendant Below
)  Court Below:  Superior Court
Appellant,
)  of the State of Delaware in
)  and for New Castle County
v.
)
)  C.A. No. 00C-09-015
STATE OF DELAWARE,
)
)
Plaintiff Below
)
Appellee.
)
Submitted:  July 10, 2001
Decided:  August 10, 2001
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10th day of August 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1.
Appellant, Francis R. Mitchell trading as Bob’s Adult Discount
Books, Inc. filed an interlocutory appeal from the decision of the Superior Court
reversing the ruling of the Commission in Adult Entertainment Establishments that
an allege violation of 24 Del.C. § 1622(a) would result in assessment of a fine with
no further penalty.  A violation of 24 Del.C. § 1622(a) occurs when an
establishment licensed by the Commission fails to report a change in status of
employed personnel.
2.
The State appealed a September 20, 2000 finding by the Commission
that it did have specific authority to impose a fine as a civil penalty to the Superior
2
Court.  The Superior Court reversed the Commission ruling that the Commission
may impose the penalty of a fine under 24 Del.C. § 1618(c) only pursuant to
regulations enacted under the authority of that statute and that as of September 20,
2000, the Commission had not promulgated any such regulations.  The Superior
Court remanded the case to the Commission for further hearing and certified an
interlocutory appeal to this Court.
3.
We reverse the Superior Court because we conclude that:
(a)  A fair reading of 24 Del.C. § 1622, read in conjunction with 24
Del.C. § 1618(c) expresses a legislative policy to expand the supervisory or
regulatory powers of the Commission rather than to restrict them.  The legislature’s
delegation of rule making power to the Commission would facilitate the
administration of the objectives of the statutory scheme;
(b)  The record reflects a clear acquiescence by the State to the
Commission’s imposition of a civil penalty and an abandonment of the position
that the Commission is authorized solely to impose the penalty of revocation of a
validly issued license upon a finding that a licensee has violated 24 Del.C. §
1622(a); and,
(c)  Upon remand, the issue of the lack of regulatory authority was
mooted when the Commission published regulations on March 1, 2001, effective
3
March 11, 2001 which would authorize imposition upon remand of the very
penalty to which the State both acquiesced and now about which it complains.
4.  We further conclude that to continue to entertain this appeal after:  (a)
recognizing the legislature’s intent to grant the Commission the power to impose
the penalty that it in fact imposed; and, (b) noting the State’s earlier acquiescence
in the imposition of the civil penalty of a fine; and, (c) confirming that regulations
are now in place which would authorize the imposition of the civil penalty of a fine
upon remand, would not be in the interest of justice.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for action consistent with this
Order.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele_______________
Justice