ALJDEC - Licensing

23A-101126-AGR · Department of Agriculture · 2024-04-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

KEVIN PAUL BONSOR

License Applicant,

Appellant.

No. 23A-101126-AGR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 20, 2024

APPEARANCES: Appellant Kevin Paul Bonsor (Appellant) did not appear. Assistant Attorney General Deanie Reh represented the Arizona Department of Agriculture (Department).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department’s Exhibit 1, 2.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On or about February 15, 2018, Appellant was convicted in Yavapai County Municipal Court of Shoplifting – Removal of Goods, a class 1 misdemeanor. Appellant was sentenced to pay a fine and victim restitution.

Appellant did not pay the fine in full until March 21, 2021.

Appellant submitted an application for Certified Applicator with the Department.

On August 28, 2023, the Department issued a Notice of Denial of Application (Notice) to Appellant. The Notice provided that the application was denied because Appellant had been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

Appellant appealed the denial.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing on the matter.

A hearing was held on March 20, 2024.

At hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Cristina Castro, the Department’s Customer Service Unit Supervisor.

Ms. Castro explained that the Department’s concern is the safety of the public because Certified Applicators can go into the homes of Arizona residents.

Ms. Castro explained that some people may be granted a license after enough time had passed from the applicant’s release from incarceration. Ms. Castro stated that the Department likes to see applicants have at least seven years after release without further issues before it considers granting an application.

10. Appellant did not appear at the hearing. Appellant did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the duly noticed hearing was delayed forty-seven minutes to allow Appellant additional time to appear, Appellant did not appear through an attorney, and did not contact OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Appellant did not present any evidence to establish that the Denial was improper.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence.

A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The Department is the duly constituted authority for the regulation and control of pest management and certification of pesticide applicators.

The Director of the Department may deny a license based on the information in the application.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-3624(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

B. The following nonexclusive acts are grounds for disciplinary action:

. . . .

8. Being convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor arising from or in connection with a license issued pursuant to this chapter after issuance of the license or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

The uncontroverted evidence in this matter established that on February 15, 2018, Appellant was convicted of Shoplifting – Removal of Goods, a class 1 misdemeanor, which is a crime of involving moral turpitude, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-215 (24).

Accordingly, grounds exist under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-3624(B)(8) to deny Appellant’s application at this time.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Department’s order, the Department affirm the decision to deny Appellant’s application for Certified Applicator.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

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 will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, April 9, 2024.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Keith Kelly, Director

Department of Agriculture

Deanie Reh, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

Kevin Paul Bonsor

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff