In re Harris

Filed 8/16/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

B322152 In re Los Angeles County ANDRE PIERRE HARRIS Super. Ct. No. 22STCP00711

for Change of Name.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michelle Williams Court, Judge. Affirmed. Andre Pierre Harris, in pro per, for Petitioner and Appellant. ____________________ Andre Pierre Harris is the name on Harris’s birth certificate. Harris applied to the trial court in March 2022 to change his name to :Minko: Yona-Gvinge: El-BeyⓇ. On the ground that Harris has “outstanding warrant(s),” the trial court denied Harris’s petition. We affirm because there was no abuse of discretion. (See In re Ross (1937) 8 Cal.2d 608, 609.) Before the hearing on his petition, Harris published his request four times in a newspaper of general circulation, as

required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1277, subdivisions (a)(2)(A) and (a)(3). Had his request for a change of name been for purposes of gender affirmance, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1277.5, subdivision (b), effective January 1, 2019, publication would not have been required. The trial court evidently ran Harris’s name through law enforcement records and found “warrant(s).” It issued a tentative opinion stating it planned “to deny the petition on the ground that petitioner has an outstanding warrant(s).” Its final order stated that, “[h]aving heard from petitioner,” the court was adopting its tentative ruling and the petition was denied without prejudice. The “petitioner may reapply.” Harris’s appellate record does not describe his court hearing. Nor does this record elaborate the number or nature of the “warrant(s)” that were the focus of the court’s ruling. By statute, it was proper for the trial court to check law enforcement records when considering Harris’s petition to change his name. The California Legislature has directed courts to use the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) to determine whether a name change applicant must register as a sex offender. “If a court is not equipped with CLETS or CJIS, the clerk of the court shall contact an appropriate local law enforcement agency, which shall determine whether or not the petitioner is required to register . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1279.5, subd. (f).) By passing this statute, the Legislature sought to ensure people required to register as sex offenders cannot change their names to frustrate the registration requirement.