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 has presented undisputed evidence that this applicant (1) was convicted of a felony, and (2) stated on his application that he had committed no criminal acts that would disqualify his application under Section 5135(e), which is a material misrepresentation.

Applicant has presented no evidence disputing CSD's allegations. Applicant has stated that he pleaded no contest to a narcotics charge over 14 years ago while he was a college student, and that it was through an oversight that he did not disclose it on his application.

CSD contends that Bell's 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, Bell's history shows one isolated instance that occurred 14 years ago. The records show that Bell complied with the ordered three-year probation. CSD has not shown any pattern of criminal acts by Bell that is analogous to the pattern exhibited by Porter. Aside from noting Bell's failure to disclose his conviction (discussed below), CSD has not presented any facts or analysis that might support its assertion that Bell is "unamenable to regulation and likely as a carrier to engage in criminal behavior injurious to the public." Indeed, Bell's more recent conduct (including his successful completion of probation) demonstrates a pattern of compliance with the criminal laws of this state. Therefore, we find that Porter and Bell are distinguishable.

Bell's conviction occurred 14 years ago. This conviction is not substantial evidence of a contemporary inability of Bell to conform himself to the laws of this state.

Bell's failure to disclose his conviction on the application, however, is a contemporaneous act. Bell stated that his failure to disclose the conviction was an "oversight" on his part, that he has reformed, and is now a law-abiding citizen with the knowledge, ability, integrity, and financial resources and responsibilities to perform moving services in this State. Failing to disclose a felony conviction is a serious "oversight." As this decision demonstrates, such "oversights" are not likely to go undetected. In the context of this application, however, we find that Bell's failure to disclose this conviction is not sufficient grounds to find him otherwise ineligible for a household goods carrier permit.

We have previously determined that providing service prior to obtaining Commission operating authority does not preclude an applicant from showing the required fitness for such authorization. Donald A. Grabowski (Starlight Limousine Service), 74 CPUC 335 (D.80660)(1972). The Court of Appeals recounted the Commission's reasoning in a similar case: "it is more important to bring those who wish to operate lawfully under the umbrella of full regulation than it is to perpetuate an undesirable situation." Golden Sedan Service, Inc., v. Airport Limousine Service, 121 Cal. App. 3d 359, 365 (1981). We are satisfied that Bell's participation in the process leading up to this decision has been sufficient to draw his attention to the need to seek out, understand, and implement applicable laws and regulations.

We will grant Bell Moving Company, Inc., a Household Goods Carrier Permit.