IV. Discussion

Pursuant to § 5135, this Commission may deny a Household Goods Carrier permit "if it is shown that an applicant . . . has committed any act constituting dishonesty or fraud; committed any act which, [if] committed by a permitholder would be grounds for a suspension or revocation of the permit; misrepresented any material fact on the application; or, committed a felony, or crime involving moral turpitude." CSD presented undisputed evidence that this applicant: (1) was convicted of misdemeanors and a felony, and (2) failed to disclose the convictions on his application. CSD also argued that Torres' application should be denied because his prior permit had been revoked due to failure to maintain insurance coverage.

CSD contends that Torres' criminal history is similar to that of the applicant in Application of Porter, Decision (D.) 98-02-100. There the applicant had been convicted of second-degree burglary and assault with intent to rape 16 years prior to applying for authority to operate as an Energy Service Provider. The Commission concluded that the convictions were "not substantially related to the qualifications of a licensee." The Commission went on, however, to consider the applicant's subsequent compliance with the law. Since the convictions, Porter had been convicted of a misdemeanor charge of prostitution, and had multiple convictions for driving with a suspended license. At the time of his application to the Commission, there was an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest for failure to perform community service ordered for his latest conviction for driving with a suspended license. Based on this history, the Commission concluded that Porter's failure to comply with the court orders showed a lack of responsibility, and that Porter was not amenable to regulation.

In contrast to Porter's criminal history, Torres' criminal history ends in 1991, a decade ago. Torres stated that he overcame his problems with drugs through rehabilitation, and has been providing moving service in compliance with applicable law and regulations since 1993. CSD has not shown any pattern of criminal acts by Torres that is analogous to the pattern exhibited by Porter. Indeed, other than these decade-old convictions, Torres' conduct (including his successful provision of moving service for over eight years) demonstrates a pattern of compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of this State. Therefore, we find that Porter and Torres are distinguishable.

CSD offers two reasons supporting its position that the application should be denied based on Torres' failure to disclose his convictions on his application. First, CSD states that such convictions would be grounds to revoke a Household Goods Carrier Permit. Because the application requires disclosure of any act that would be grounds for revocation, CSD concludes that Torres was required to disclose the conviction. CSD's second argument for denying Torres' application due to his failure to disclose his convictions is that Torres has committed an act of dishonesty and misrepresented a material fact on his application by omitting the convictions. While we agree that at least some of Torres' convictions would meet the requirements for disclosure, Torres has explained his belief that his criminal record had been expunged. Moreover, Torres has been providing the very services for which he now seeks operating authority (in a different organizational structure) for over eight years in compliance with this Commission's regulations.

In sum, based on the particular facts of this case, we find that Torres' decade-old criminal convictions are not sufficient to render him otherwise unfit to receive a Household Goods Carrier Permit.

We will grant Robert Charles Torres, Jr., doing business as Split Second Enterprises, Inc. a Household Goods Carrier Permit.