{ "id": 1571122, "name": "Edgar L. LAKE, Jr., d/b/a Turquoise Bar, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorenzo F. GARCIA, Hearing Officer and Carlos L. Jaramillo, Director, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Lake v. Garcia", "decision_date": "1978-05-05", "docket_number": "No. 11509", "first_page": "608", "last_page": "609", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "91 N.M. 608" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "577 P.2d 1254" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "64 N.M. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5344921 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/64/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.M. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2848126 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/66/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 N.M. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1563086 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/46/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 N.M. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2846509 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/65/0119-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 257, "char_count": 3497, "ocr_confidence": 0.779, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.05874319313597048 }, "sha256": "958c69f5944aaeac5d6dd7a183cc3692af05519ba4a56f7d7f9d72be6c2ad810", "simhash": "1:5f21293f20792777", "word_count": 552 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "McMANUS, C. J., and SOSA, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Edgar L. LAKE, Jr., d/b/a Turquoise Bar, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorenzo F. GARCIA, Hearing Officer and Carlos L. Jaramillo, Director, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nFEDERICI, Justice.\nThis suit was brought in the District Court of Santa Fe County for judicial review of a decision and order by a hearing officer of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Department). The hearing officer\u2019s decision and order imposed the maximum sanction provided in Regulation 39(D) of the Department\u2019s regulations upon petitioner-appellant (appellant), who had been found guilty of multiple violations of the Liquor Control Act and regulations promulgated pursuant to it. The penalty imposed was six months suspension of the liquor license and a $2,500 fine. The district court entered its written order affirming the hearing officer\u2019s decision and rder. We affirm the district court.\nRegulation 39(D) was promulgated pursuant to \u00a7 46-6-4(0), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp. 1975), which provides that:\nIt shall be mandatory that the director of the liquor control division adopt a regulation setting forth uniform standards of penalties concerning fines and suspensions imposed by the director and the liquor control hearing officer.\nRegulation 39(D) itself provides:\nREGULATION NO. 39 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LIQUOR CONTROL ACT OR REGULATIONS\n(D) FOURTH AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE \u2014 The Department or Hearing Officer shall assess a penalty of a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,500 and/or an order of suspension of business activities of not less than sixty (60) days nor more than one hundred eighty (180) days, or the Hearing Officer shall issue his order of revocation of the license.\nAppellant contends that Regulation 39 is penal in nature and therefore must be strictly construed. It is settled in this jurisdiction that proceedings of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control are not penal but rather are administrative proceedings in the nature of a civil action. Kearns v. Aragon, 65 N.M. 119, 333 P.2d 607 (1959); Chiordi v. Jernigan, 46 N.M. 396, 129 P.2d 640 (1942).\nAppellant also contends that Regulation 39 is analagous to the habitual offender statute and that an enhanced or increased penalty cannot be imposed for a \u201csubsequent offense\u201d unless there has been a previous conviction or convictions. The habitual offender statute is not analagous to the regulation at issue in this case. In order to arrive at the conclusion requested by appellant this Court would have to determine that the regulation involved is penal, which we have refused to do. Consequently, the construction given the term \u201coffense\u201d under habitual criminal statutes does not control here.\nThis has also been the Department\u2019s interpretation of Regulation 39(D). Although this interpretation is not necessarily binding upon this Court, it is persuasive. State ex rel. Dickson v. Aldridge, 66 N.M. 390, 348 P.2d 1002 (1960); Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Mender, 64 N.M. 59, 323 P.2d 1099 (1958).\nWe conclude that Regulation 39(D) does not require previous convictions of guilt in order for the Director to impose the enhanced penalty.\nThe order and judgment of the district court is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nMcMANUS, C. J., and SOSA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "FEDERICI, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "John D. Donnell, Santa Fe, for petitioner-appellant.", "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Albert V. Gonzales, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondents-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "577 P.2d 1254\nEdgar L. LAKE, Jr., d/b/a Turquoise Bar, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorenzo F. GARCIA, Hearing Officer and Carlos L. Jaramillo, Director, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Respondents-Appellees.\nNo. 11509.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMay 5, 1978.\nJohn D. Donnell, Santa Fe, for petitioner-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Albert V. Gonzales, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondents-appellees." }, "file_name": "0608-01", "first_page_order": 644, "last_page_order": 645 }