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

1 The SPI employee was also issued a criminal summons for unlawful sales to persons under
twenty- one years of age, which is not on appeal.

2

the ABC Board on March 21, 2024. ABC unanimously sustained the violations,

imposed a fine of $600 for allowing an unlicensed person to sell alcohol, a fine of

250 for unlawful sales to a minor, and suspended SPI' s class B permit2 for 60 days,

effective March 25, 2024. SPI subsequently paid a total fine of $900, which included

a $ 50 late fee.

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

2 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.

3 The case was originally filed as a suspensive appeal and was converted to a devolutive appeal
on August 19, 2024.

3

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.

4 Louisiana Revised Statute § 26: 303( B) provides, in pertinent part:

Within ten calendar days of the signing of the judgment by the district court in any
such appeal cases, any aggrieved party may devolutively appeal the judgment to
the appellate court of proper jurisdiction. These appeals shall be perfected in the
manner provided for in civil cases but shall be devolutive in their nature and effect.

Emphasis added.)

11

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.