SPI Mini Mart, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge

STATE OF LOUISIANA

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CA 0020

SPI MINI MART, INC.

VERSUS

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD FOR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE Judgment Rendered: R

On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No. C746163, Section 33

Honorable Eboni Johnson -Rose, Judge Presiding

Druit G. Gremillion, Jr. Attorney for Plaintiff A - ppellee, Baton Rouge, LA SPI Mini Mart, Inc.

Aislyn C. Grimm Attorneys for Defendant -Appellant, Courtney King Humphrey Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for Baton Rouge, LA the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge

BEFORE: McCLENDON, C. J., LANIER AND BALFOUR, JJ.

BALFOUR, J.

The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (" ABC") for the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, sent a 17 -year- old confidential informant (" Cl"), claiming to be of legal age, to purchase alcohol as a compliance check on SPI Mini Mart, Inc. (" SPI"). Because SPI sold alcohol to the underage CI, ABC suspended SPI' s Class B permit and assessed a fine. SPI sought an appeal of ABC' s decision with the 19th Judicial District Court. The district court reversed ABC' s decision and entered a judgment in favor of SPI, finding that the CI' s statement that he was of legal age to make the purchase constituted entrapment. ABC appeals to this Court and asserts that the CI' s interaction with the employee did not constitute entrapment.

ABC also contends the district court' s de novo review was improper. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

Facts and Procedural History

On February 27, 2024, ABC, in conjunction with the Baton Rouge Police Department' s Juvenile and Underage Drinking Enforcement (" JUDE") task force, conducted a compliance check at SPI following multiple complaints of underage alcohol sales in the area. As part of the operation, a vetted 17 -year-old CI entered

SPI to purchase a beer. The transaction was monitored by ABC and JUDE officers stationed outside SPI. The employee on duty asked the Cl for his identification ID"), to which the Cl responded that he did not have his ID. After further inquiry, the Cl verbally provided a birth year of 2000, suggesting he was at least 23 years old at the time. Relying on this statement, the employee proceeded with the sale.

Following the sale, officers entered the store and issued citations to SPI for violations of Section 9: 1017( A) and Section 9: 1013( 4) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.' A hearing on the violations was held before

SPI appealed ABC' s decision to the district court, filing a Petition for Trial De Novo pursuant to La. R.S. § 33: 4788. SPI argued in its petition that the CI' s misrepresentation of his age constituted entrapment and violated ABC policies prohibiting deception in compliance checks. A trial was held on May 6, 2024. After a trial de novo, the district court found that the CI' s actions constituted entrapment, finding it to be an affirmative defense that negated SPI' s liability for the violations.

On May 6, 2024, the district court vacated ABC' s decision, reinstated SPI' s alcohol license, and ordered a refund of the $ 900 fine. The judgment was signed on May 13, 2024. 3 ABC now appeals.

Law and Discussion

In the instant appeal, SPI filed a motion to dismiss, urging this court that ABC failed to timely file this appeal relying on La R.S. 33: 4788.

The holder of the permit who is aggrieved by a decision of the governing body of the municipality or parish or a municipal alcoholic beverage control board to suspend or revoke his permit, may within ten days of the notification of the decision take a devolutive appeal to the district court having jurisdiction of his place of business and on such appeal the trial shall be de novo. Within ten calendar days from the signing of the judgment by the district court the municipality or parish Louisiana Revised Statutes 26: 271. 4: " Package house -Class B permit"

Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary and subject to rules promulgated by the commissioner, in addition to the authority to contract with a third -party delivery company or a third -party platform as provided in R.S. 26: 308, a permit may be issued to a grocery store enabling the delivery of alcohol as defined in R.S. 26: 2 and 241( 1)( a) with its own employees or agents for which the retailer is required to file an Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 or 1099. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 26: 271( A)(2), the permit fee for the permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be two hundred fifty dollars.

governing authority, a municipal alcoholic beverage control board or the holder of the permit, as the case may be, may devolutively appeal from the judgment of the district court to the court of appeals as in ordinary civil cases.

Emphasis added.)

We find this statute is applicable. Moreover, the Alcoholic Beverage statute section, La. R.S. 26: 303( B) 4 mirrors La R.S. 33: 4788 and provides the same delay to file an appeal to this Court. Both statutes state that an appeal must be taken within ten calendar days from the signing of the judgment. Herein, the district court signed the judgment at issue on May 13, 2024. ABC had until May 23, 2024, to file an appeal. This appeal was lodged on June 5, 2024 — clearly, not within ten calendar days.

The issue of timeliness is jurisdictional and must be considered. PuffIt Up, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Boardfor the City ofBaton Rouge, 2024- 0479 La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 27/ 24), 404 So. 3d 60, 62. An appellant' s failure to file a devolutive appeal timely is a jurisdictional defect in that neither the court of appeal nor any other court has the jurisdictional power and authority to reverse, revise, or modify a final judgment after the time for filing a devolutive appeal has elapsed. Id. Accordingly, when an appellant fails to timely file a devolutive appeal from a final judgment, the judgment acquires the authority of the thing adjudged, and the court of appeal has no jurisdiction to alter that judgment. Id. As such, this Court has no jurisdictional power or authority to reinstate ABC' s imposed fine.

Emphasis added.)

Conclusion

For these reasons, we grant SPI' s motion to dismiss the appeal. The May 13, 2024 judgment is dismissed. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $1, 081 are assessed to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge.

APPEAL DISMISSED.