COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60868 WJL JR., INC. : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION : : Defendant-appellee : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JULY 30, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 176,706 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: GEORGE W. WHITEHEAD Attorney at Law 1367 East Sixth Street 428 Lincoln Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendant-appellee: LEE FISHER Ohio Attorney General KURT O. GEARHISER, Assistant 2323 West Fifth Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43266-0701 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, P.J.: Plaintiff-appellant WJL Jr., Inc. appeals from the judgment of the common pleas court which affirmed the order of appellee, the Ohio Liquor Control Commission, denying renewal of appel- lant's liquor permit. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the common pleas court. On March 29, 1989, appellee held a hearing on the advisabil- ity of appellant's application to renew its liquor permit. After all the testimony and evidence was presented, appellee issued its order denying appellant's application for renewal based upon the follow-ing grounds and facts: 1) The place for which the permit is sought is so located with respect to the neigh- borhood that substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace or good order would result from the renewal of the permit and operation thereunder by the applicant. R.C. 4303.292(A)(2)(- c). 2) The place for which the permit is sought is so situated with respect to a church located at the intersection of 101st and St. Clair Avenue that issuance of this renewal and operation of the liquor establishment will substantially and adversely affect and interfere with the normal, orderly conduct of the affairs of this church. R.C. 4303.292(B)(1). - 2 - 3) The applicant permit holder has operated this liquor permit business in a manner that demonstrates a disregard for the laws, regulations, and local ordinances of this state. R.C. 4303.292(A)(1)(b). 4) The applicant permit holder is a corpo- ration which is not in good standing with the Ohio Secretary of State, and, therefore prohibited from exercising any powers, privileges, or franchises under its Articles of Incorporation. R.C. 1701.97. The common pleas court affirmed appellee's decision finding it supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The following testimony and evidence was adduced at the hear-ing before appellee: Detective Robert L. Glover testified that he has conducted police activity in the area surrounding appellant's bar, known as the Century Grill, since 1983. He has personally been inside the bar fifty to sixty times to investigate criminal activity and chase down drug dealers and gamblers, and to apprehend partici- pants in fights occurring outside the bar. Det. Glover specifi- cally testified to having arrested an Arthur Green, whom Det. Glover observed selling drugs directly outside the Century Grill. Mr. Green was apprehended inside the bar while attempting to flush cocaine down a toilet. Det. Glover also testified he was present during the arrest of a number of persons involved in a numbers game, one of whom, an employee of appellant, possessed a marijuana cigarette in her purse. - 3 - Det. Glover stated that on any given day or night, winter or summer, there are at least twenty to forty people operating a dice game in front of the bar. Det. Glover described the area surrounding the bar as a "heavy crime area" and an area in which a person cannot park his car without being approached by drug dealers. Det. Glover stated the runners remain outside the bar selling crack cocaine and return inside the bar to deliver the money proceeds to the "main guys," who apparently control the operation. On numerous occasions, while inside the bar, Det. Glover observed cocaine on the floor next to people who had sat down. Det. Glover stated the Century Grill was the number one hot spot or problem in the sixth district. On cross-examination, Det. Glover admitted to making numer- ous arrests outside the bar, but only the three arrests, to which he specifically testified, inside the bar. Det. Glover stated he never observed the bar's owner, Cicero Lamar, deal drugs or be- friend those outside his bar who do deal in drugs. Cleveland City Councilman Jeffrey Johnson also testified concerning his familiarity with the Century Grill. Councilman Johnson stated that over the last five years, the Century Grill has been the number one problem in his ward and that crack co- caine has escalated the problem. Councilman Johnson stated that the problem surrounding the Century Grill is the congregating of young people selling drugs and harassing churchgoers and bar patrons sitting on the church steps located across the street - 4 - from the bar and urinating on the church. On cross-examination, Councilman Johnson testified to having received numerous com- plaints concerning bar patrons urinating on the church across the street, but, he stated, he never observed it personally. Addi- tionally, he admitted to having a drug problem throughout his ward, but stated that he does not have the same problem with people urinating on churches, harassing churchgoers, and gambling that he does with the area surrounding the Century Grill. Dwight Johnson, an investigator for the Department of Liquor Control, testified concerning his investigation into gambling activity taking place inside the Century Grill. He stated he arrested a Russell Mitchell inside the Century Grill for taking bets on the Ohio lottery numbers game without being an authorized agent. Mr. Johnson also stated a bartender had been arrested during this operation and was found to possess a marijuana ciga- rette. Finally, Detective Charles Stockey of the Cleveland Police Department testified to having arrested hundreds of people in and around the Century Grill for drug violations, open containers and gambling. He stated that out of some seven hundred bars in the sixth district, the Century Grill was in the top ten for problems due to drug activity and complaints from citizens and councilmen. However, on cross-examination, Det. Stockey admitted that in nine years, he had only made one arrest inside the Century Grill. - 5 - Russell Mitchell, a regular bar patron, testified on behalf of appellant. Mr. Mitchell stated he wrote numbers for various people while inside the Century Grill, including some of appel- lant's employees, and played these numbers in an Ohio lottery machine. Mr. Mitchell was arrested, paid a fine, and was placed on one-year probation for taking such bets. Mr. Michell further testified that he has never observed any drug activity inside the bar and that Cicero Lamar does not permit any illegal activity inside his bar. Finally, Mr. Mitchell testified to having ob- served Mr. Lamar throw people suspected of illegal activity out of his bar. Nate O'Neil, who lives right behind the Century Grill and is also a regular customer, testified to having never observed any drug activity inside the bar, although he had observed drug ac- tivity and gambling near the premises. Mr. O'Neil also stated that Mr. Lamar does not allow any drug dealers in his bar. Eu- gene Barney, also a regular customer, and Marlene Robinson, the bar's former owner, corroborated Mr. Mitchell's and Mr. O'Neil's testimony. Finally, Cicero Lamar, the Century Grill owner, testified to taking as many precautions as possible to alleviate the drug prob-lem near his premises. He stated that a very substantial portion of his time is spent chasing away drug dealers and gam- blers from the front of his bar. In fact, he has been shot at for his efforts. Mr. Lamar also stated he attempts to cooperate - 6 - with the police, but receives no help. Finally, Mr. Lamar stated he has spent over eighty thousand dollars over the last two and one-half years remodeling his bar. Based on the above facts, the common pleas court affirmed the decision of the Liquor Control Commission, which denied re- newal of appellant's liquor license. Appellant timely appeals, raising the following sole assignment of error: THE APPELLANT, WJL JR., INC., FOR IT'S (SIC.) ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS, STATES THAT THE ORDER RENDERED BY THE OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL COMMIS- SION ON THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1989, IS ERRO- NEOUS IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 1. THE COMMISSION ERRED IN ADMITTING INCOM- PETENT EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE APPELLEE OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE JUDGMENT IS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE AND IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 3. THE JUDGMENT IS CONTRARY TO LAW. 4. THE DECISION OF THE LIQUOR CONTROL COM- MISSION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE, PROBATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. THE DECISION OF THE LIQUOR CONTROL COM- MISSION IS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, AND OF ABUSIVE DISCRETION. 6. FOR OTHER ERRORS MANIFEST UPON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT. At the onset, we feel compelled to note that appellant's brief barely complies with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See App. R. 12(A) and 16(A)(4). Strict compliance with App. R. 16(A) is required to avoid confusion of issues, rhetoric and - 7 - unnecessary delay. See, State v. Gall (1980), 65 Ohio App. 2d 57. Although appellant raises the above "assignment of errors," the "argument" section of his brief proceeds to attack each of appellee's four stated reasons for denying appellant's renewal. This is followed by a "law" section which contains additional argument. However, neither of appellant's "argument" or "law" sections follows the above "assignment of errors" in a cohesive fashion. In any event, an appeal from an administrative agency is governed by R.C. 119.12, which states in pertinent part: The court may affirm the order of the agency complained of in the appeal if it finds, upon consideration of the entire record and such additional evidence as the court has admit- ted, that the order is supported by reliable, pro-bative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. *** The issue before this court, therefore, is whether the trial court was correct in determining that appellee's decision is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. See, Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 570, 571. The Ohio Supreme Court, in Our Place, supra, recently stat- ed: The evidence required by R.C. 119.12 can be defined as follows: (1) "Reliable" evidence is dependable; that is, it can be confidently trusted. In order to be reliable, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true. (2) "Probative" evidence is evi- dence that tends to prove the issue in ques- tion; it must be relevant in determining the - 8 - issue. (3) "Substantial" evidence is evi- dence with some weight; it must have impor- tance and value. Id., at 571. R.C. 4303.271 generally provides that a holder of a liquor permit may not be denied renewal of said permit unless the de- partment of liquor control rejects for "good cause" a renewal appli-cation. Further, R.C. 4303.292 provides, in relevant part: (A) The department of liquor control may refuse to issue, transfer the ownership of, or renew, and shall refuse to transfer the location of any retail permit issued under this chapter if it finds: (1) That the applicant, any partner, member, officer, director, or manager thereof, or any shareholder owning ten percent or more of its capital stock: * * * (b) Has operated his liquor permit business in a manner that demon- strates a disregard for the laws, regulations, or local ordinances of this state or any other state: *** (2) That the place for which the permit is sought: * * * (c) Is so located with respect to the neighborhood that substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace or good order would result from the issuance, renewal, transfer of location, or transfer of ownership of the permit and operation thereunder by the appli- cant. - 9 - (B) The department of liquor control may refuse to issue or transfer the ownership of, and shall refuse to transfer the location of any retail permit issued under this chapter if it finds: (1) That the place for which the permit is sought is so situated with respect to any school, church, library, public playgrounds, or hospital that the opera- tion of the liquor establishment will substantially and adversely affect or interfere with the normal, orderly con- duct of the affairs of those facilities or institutions. A liquor license is neither a propriety nor a contract rig- ht, but mere permission to engage in the liquor business. This license is subject to suspension, revocation or rejection of renewal. State, ex rel. Zugravu, v. O'Brien (1935), 130 Ohio St. 23, paragraph two of the syllabus; Abraham v. Fioramonte (1952), 158 Ohio St. 213, paragraph five of the syllabus. Appellee rejected appellant's application to renew its li- quor permit on four grounds. Appellant takes exception to all grounds stated by appellee. The first reason given by appellee is that the place for which the permit is sought is so located with respect to the neighborhood that substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace and good order would result from the renewal of the permit and operation thereunder by the applicant. See, R.C. 4303.292(A)(2)(c). Citing to the syllabus of Quaranta v. Liquor Control Comm. (1983), 17 Ohio App. 3d 156, appellant argues there is no evi- dence in the record to show that appellant caused any environmen- - 10 - tal problems, nor did appellee demonstrate a general unfitness of appellant to continue to engage in the liquor business. In Quar- anta, the court stated that the Liquor Control Commission could have refused to grant a liquor permit based on "environmental factors," pursuant to R.C. 4303.292(A)(1)(b), where the permit holder by his actions caused the complained-of environmental problem through a disregard for laws, regulations, or local ordi- nances. However, in the present case, appellee's first-stated reason for refusing to renew appellant's permit is based on R.C. 4303.292(A)(2)(c), which refers to the location of the permit premises and not to any actions on the part of the permit holder. Thus, in interpreting R.C. 4303.292(A)(2), location, and not the permit holder's action or inaction, is the controlling factor. Ohio courts have not hesitated to uphold the Liquor Control Com- mission's decision to refuse to renew a liquor permit based on environmental factors through no fault of the permit holder. See, Leo G. Keffalas, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm. (June 25, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-110, unreported; Ravenna Restau- rant, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm. (Nov. 2, 1990), Portage App. No. 90-P-2173, unreported; Meschugga Co. v. Liquor Control Comm. (Feb. 14, 1990), Hamilton App. No. C-890031, unreported; and Zan, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm. (June 14, 1979), Cuyahoga App. No. 39024, unreported. In the present case, Det. Glover testified to having been inside the Century Grill fifty to sixty times investigating crime - 11 - or chasing down drug dealers, gamblers or fighters. Det. Glover stated that at any given time, twenty to forty people can be observed outside the bar operating a dice game. He further stat- ed the bar was located in a heavy crime area where a person can- not park his car without being approached by drug dealers. More- over, Det. Glover testified to having observed cocaine on the floor inside the bar where people sit down. Councilman Johnson and Det. Stockey, who are also very familiar with the area, cor- roborated Det. Glover's testimony regarding the area in which appellant's bar is located. In fact, appellant's own witnesses testified as to the general environmental factors surrounding the permit premises. It is undisputed that a serious crime problem, escalated by the crack cocaine trade, surrounds the location of the Century Grill. Further, the evidence presented by appellee suggests that the above crime problem has penetrated appellant's bar to the point where those involved with the drug trade or gambling use appellant's bar as a sort of hub to carry on their enterprises. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in affirming the decision of the Liquor Control Commission pursuant to R.C. 4303.- 292(A)(2)(c). Appellee's decision is clearly supported by reli- able, probative and substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Appellee's second-stated reason to deny renewal of appel- lant's permit is that the place for which the permit is sought is - 12 - so situated with respect to a church that issuance of this renew- al and operation of the liquor establishment would substantially and adversely affect and interfere with the normal, orderly con- duct of the affairs of the church. See R.C. 4303.292(B)(1). However, this reasoning must be rejected since R.C. 4303.292(B)(- 1) does not authorize appellee to refuse to renew a permit based on the location of a church. Rather, R.C. 4303.292(B)(1) states only that appellee may refuse to issue or transfer ownership of, and shall refuse to transfer the location of, a permit, based on the adverse affect such permit would have on the normal and or- derly conduct of the affairs of a church. Accordingly, this aspect of appellee's order is not in accordance with the law. Appellee's third-stated reason to refuse to renew appel- lant's permit is that appellant operated his business in a manner that demonstrated a disregard for the laws, regulations, and local ordinances of the state. R.C. 4303.292(A)(1)(b). Dwight Johnson testified to having arrested Russell Mitchell inside the Century Grill for taking bets on the Ohio lottery numbers game without being an authorized agent. Mr. Johnson further stated that a bartender had been arrested during this operation and was found to possess a marijuana cigarette. Finally, Russell Mitch- ell testified to having placed numbers bets for numerous people, including some of appellant's employees. Mr. Mitchell was ar- rested, paid a fine and placed on one-year probation for placing such bets. Accordingly, this aspect of appellee's decision is - 13 - supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. Appellee's last-stated reason to refuse to renew appellant's permit is that appellant is a corporation which is not in good standing with the Ohio Secretary of State and therefore prohi- bited from exercising any powers, privileges or franchises under its articles of incorporation. R.C. 1701.97. In response, ap- pellant does little more than argue that a petition in bankruptcy was converted from a Chapter 11-corporate reorganization to a Chapter 13-individual reorganization and refers to an order of the bankruptcy court wherein the court found that WJL Jr., Inc. was not a de jure corporation. Nonetheless, appellant's renewal application was submitted by WJL Jr., Inc., which does not have any powers or privileges under its articles of incorporation. R.C. 1701.97. Accordingly, this aspect of appellee's decision is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. Finally, we will briefly address appellant's arguments re- garding various evidentiary issues as only passing references are made to these issues by appellant. First, this court can find no abuse of discretion with respect to appellee's hearing Det. Glov- er's and Councilman Johnson's opinions regarding the environ- mental problems caused by the Century Grill. Both witnesses were uniquely qualified to testify. Det. Glover had made fifty to sixty arrests in and around the Century Grill, while Councilman - 14 - Johnson grew up in, and represented in Cleveland City Council, the community surrounding the premises. Next, appellant argues appellee erred in accepting certain police reports and certified copies of journal entries showing the disposition of certain criminal cases stemming from arrests made outside the Century Grill where no officer testified as to having personal knowledge of those specific reports. However, the appellee admitted only that portion of the exhibits which were certified journal en- tries. Moreover, the testimony of Dets. Glover and Stockey es- tablishes that numerous arrests were made outside the Century Grill. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of appellee, and appellant has failed to demonstrate any preju- dice upon the admission of such journal entries. Therefore, we find the trial court did not err in determin- ing that appellee's decision to refuse to renew appellant's li- quor permit is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. Appellant's sole assign- ment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. - 15 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this ap- peal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. ANN McMANAMON, J. HARPER, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .