ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

20F-188-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2020-03-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Original Application for Real Estate Salesperson License of:

PERKINS, RONASHLEY, holder of license number SA683110000 (Candidate),

Petitioner.

No. 20F-188-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: March 4, 2020

APPEARANCES: Ronashley Perkins on his own behalf; Lynette Evans, Esq. for the Department of Real Estate

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden

FINDINGS OF FACT

On January 29, 2020, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on March 4, 2020 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Notice of Hearing provided that hearing was being held to determine whether grounds exist to affirm the Department’s intent to deny Petitioner Ronashley Perkins’s application for a real estate salesperson’s license.

Mr. Perkins appeared and testified on his own behalf. The Department presented the testimony of senior investigator Bret Biesenthal.

On October 17, 2019, the Department received Mr. Perkins’s application for licensure. In his application, Mr. Perkins disclosed felony and misdemeanor convictions.

On July 27, 2008, Mr. Perkins was arrested and charged with 1st and 3rd degree criminal trespass. He was ultimately sentenced to one-year of probation.

On or about December 8, 2000, in Pima County Superior Court case number CR2000-2938, Mr. Perkins pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree, a class 3 felony. Mr. Perkins was sentenced to five years of intensive probation.

Through a Minute Entry dated October 12, 2016, the Pima County Superior Court set aside the judgment of guilt in case number CR2000-2938, and it restored Mr. Perkins’s civil rights and his right to carry and possess a firearm.

On or about September 2, 2012, in Pima County Superior Court case number CR2012-01492, Mr. Perkins pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, Misconduct Involving Weapons (Prohibited Possessor), a class 4 felony, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. Mr. Perkins was sentenced to 90 days in jail and four years of supervised probation for the Misconduct Involving Weapons conviction, and three years of probation for the Possession of Drug Paraphernalia conviction.

Through an Order dated March 26, 2018, the Pima County Superior Court set aside the judgments of guilt in case number CR2012-01492, and it restored Mr. Perkins’s civil rights and his right to carry and possess a firearm.

The Department considered the number and nature Mr. Perkins’s infractions, including that they were felony offenses, and through a letter dated November 22, 2019, it informed Mr. Perkins of its intent to deny his application.

Mr. Perkins requested a hearing, which led to this matter be scheduled.

Through the Notice of Hearing the Department alleged that Mr. Perkins violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-2153(B)(2) and (B)(7).

Mr. Perkins testified that he was not seeking to deny or hide from his past, and he accepted that he cannot change the past. He explained that he had been raised by a single, drug-addicted mother and that there was no father figure in his life, which led to bad habits on his part, including using drugs beginning at age nine.

Mr. Perkins is a single father who changed his life at age twenty-six to serve God and his children. He is pursuing a career in real estate because no one in his family had any such aspirations and out of a desire to break the cycle of poverty and drugs.

At the time Mr. Perkins entered real estate school, he was not aware that his convictions could be a bar licensure, which he learned only after he passed the licensing examination.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Mr. Perkins bears the burden of persuasion to show that he should be granted a license. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(1).

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-2153(B) provides in pertinent part:

The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, deny the issuance of a license, issue a letter of concern to a licensee, issue a provisional license or deny the renewal or the right of renewal of a license issued under this chapter when it appears that the holder or applicant has:

***

2. Been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction in this or any other state of a felony or of any crime of forgery, theft, extortion, conspiracy to defraud, a crime of moral turpitude or any other like offense.

***

7. Not shown that the holder or applicant is a person of honesty, truthfulness and good character.

The fact that a criminal conviction has been set aside does not render that conviction a nullity and the Department may consider Mr. Perkins’s convictions in its licensing determination. See Parsons v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., 242 Ariz. 320, 395 P.3d 709 (App. 2017).

Because Mr. Perkins was convicted of three felony offenses, the Department had authority to deny his application for licensure. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-2153(B)(2) and (B)(7)

Mr. Perkins had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he should be granted a license. Weighing in Mr. Perkins’s favor are that his convictions are relatively old, that the burglary conviction occurred when he was only about fourteen years old, and his testimony that he made a change in his life when he was twenty-six. But Mr. Perkins presented no witnesses to confirm that the change occurred or who could speak to whether he currently possesses the requisite good character for the Department to issue a license to him.

Consequently, Mr. Perkins’s appeal should be denied and the Department’s denial of his application should be affirmed.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Ronashley Perkins’s appeal is denied and the Department of Real Estate’s decision to deny his application is affirmed.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order is five days after the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, March 16, 2020.

/s/ Thomas Shedden

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Judy Lowe, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000