Fine Grind, Inc., d/b/a Hard Times Café v. Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner FINE GRIND, INC., D/B/A HARD TIMES CAFÉ

MEMORANDUM OPINION * Record No. 0170-12-4 PER CURIAM

JUNE 26, 2012 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

Jan L. Brodie, Judge

(Mark R. Dycio; T. Wayne Biggs; Dycio & Biggs, on briefs), for appellant. (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Michelle Welch, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Fine Grind, Inc., d/b/a Hard Times Café (appellant) appeals a decision of the trial court affirming a decision of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (VABC). The VABC suspended appellant’s alcohol license for twenty-five days or until appellant paid a fine of $2,000. On appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in: (1) affirming the decision of the VABC where the formal agency hearing process violated appellant’s due process rights because the presiding officer was biased or partial; (2) holding that although the underage buyer’s action was not permitted by Code § 4.1-305, evidence obtained pursuant to the buyer’s action was admissible; (3) holding that 3 VAC 5-10-110 provides authority for a presiding officer to examine witnesses; (4) holding that any error regarding the impartiality of the presiding officer was harmless error; and (5) failing to award attorney’s fees to appellant pursuant to Code § 2.2-4030.

We have reviewed the record, the trial court’s opinion letter, and the trial court’s final order, and we find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the trial court in its opinion letter. 1 See Fine Grind, Inc. v. Virginia Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Case No. CL-2011-10455 (Dec. 21, 2011). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.