In re Dunn CA1/3

Filed 12/30/20 In re Dunn CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re ERIC CHRISTOPHER DUNN, for Change of Name.

ERIC CHRISTOPHER DUNN, Plaintiff and Appellant, A158452 v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF (Del Norte County DEL NORTE COUNTY, Super. Ct. No. CVPT191103) Defendant and Respondent.

Eric Christopher Dunn appeals from an order dismissing his petition for change of name. We find that Dunn did not comply with the statutory procedures governing name change petitions, and we affirm. BACKGROUND Dunn filed a petition seeking to change his name to Abdul-Hakeem Muhammad, using Judicial Council Forms, forms NC-100 and NC-110. At item 7(f) of the NC-110 form, Dunn declared he was “under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (in state prison or on parole) or in county jail” and that he was not required to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290. Dunn also filed Department of

1

Corrections and Rehabilitation Forms, form 2010, titled “Notice of Legal Name Change Petition,” which was signed by the Pelican Bay State Prison warden, indicating the warden’s concurrence with Dunn’s name change petition. (All caps omitted.) On April 16, 2019, the superior court issued an order to show cause (OSC) for change of name, setting a hearing for June 7, 2019. The OSC ordered “that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted” and required that written objections be filed at least two court days before the hearing. The OSC also required that a copy of the OSC “be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the [hearing date] in the . . . Del Norte Triplicate” and that the petition be served upon the warden of Pelican Bay State Prison. On June 7, 2019, the superior court issued an order dismissing the petition and stating that Dunn did not appear at the hearing. DISCUSSION We review the trial court’s order for an abuse of discretion. (Lee v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 510, 514.) “ ‘[T]he exercise of the trial court’s discretion will be disturbed only for a clear abuse [citation], and . . . if there is any basis upon which the action can be sustained, the ruling of the trial court must be upheld on appeal.’ ” (Ibid.) Dunn argues his petition was erroneously dismissed based upon his failure to appear at the hearing. He contends he was precluded from attending the hearing due to his incarceration, and he speculates that the superior court judge was unaware of Dunn’s incarceration due to the superior court clerk’s inadvertence in omitting form NC-110. Both form NC-110 and form NC-100 are included in the record. There is no evidence that the NC-