CHARLES LAMONT CASEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Charles Lamont Casey, an incarcerated inmate, appealed the trial court's denial of his petition to change his name to Shabazz Abdul Malik. The court reversed, holding that a facially sufficient name-change petition cannot be summarily denied without a hearing and record evidence supporting denial.
A facially sufficient petition for name change cannot be summarily denied without evidence supporting an ulterior or illegal purpose. If the trial court has concerns about potential problems for the Department of Corrections or law enforcement, it must hold a hearing with proper notice to those agencies and must afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by summarily denying a facially sufficient petition for a name change without evidence supporting an ulterior or illegal purpose.
[2] A facially sufficient petition for a name change should be granted absent evidence of an ulterior or illegal purpose.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In the instant case the trial court, apparently without having received evidence, summarily denied appellant's facially sufficient petition and committed reversible error in doing so.”
Establishes that summary denial of a facially sufficient petition without evidence constitutes reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCasey, incarcerated at Okaloosa Correctional Institution, filed a verified petition to change his name to Shabazz Abdul Malik that complied with Flori…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Name Change cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTES, Judge.
Appellant Charles Lamont Casey appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for a name change. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
While incarcerated at Okaloosa Correctional Institution appellant petitioned to change his name to Shabazz Abdul Malik. Appellant’s petition was verified and facially complied with the requirements of section 68.07, Florida Statutes (1991). The trial court’s order, rendered fifteen days after the petition was filed, indicates that the matter was heard and that the petition was denied, but the order did not provide any reason for denying the petition. The record in this case fails to indicate whether a hearing was in fact held, whether appellant was afforded an opportunity to be present for the hearing, and whether any evidence was presented. Appellant’s motion for rehearing was denied by the lower court without specifying any reason other than a citation to Carnell v. Carnell, 398 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981).1
In the instant case the trial court, apparently without having received evidence, summarily denied appellant’s facially sufficient petition and committed reversible error in doing so. In Re Keppro, 573 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Isom v. Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, 437 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). A facially sufficient petition for a name change should be granted where there is no evidence to support any ulterior or illegal purpose. Keppro, 573 So. 2d at 142; Isom, 437 So. 2d at 733-734.
We recognize that the trial court may have been concerned that granting the change of name might create problems for the Department of Corrections and other law enforcement agencies and officials. However, in order for the trial court to deny appellant’s petition based on this concern, there must be record support for this conclusion. Isom, 437 So. 2d at 733.
A trial court has the discretion to order a hearing to determine whether the allegations in a name change petition are true. Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla.1991). If the trial court is concerned that the name change may create problems for the Department of Corrections and law enforcement agencies, it should give those agencies notice and an opportunity to be heard in such a hearing. Additionally, appellant would have the right to be heard and present evidence at any such hearing. We note that the supreme court in Gosby, supra, suggested several procedures for conducting such a hearing when a petitioner seeking a name change is incarcerated. Naturally, any procedures utilized by the trial court should comport with procedural due process.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . In Carnell v. Carnell, 398 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981), this court held, among other things, that in a non-jury trial a court could deny, without oral argument, a motion for rehearing which contained no matters with merit that had not been previously argued to the court during trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barton v. Cir. Court OF the Nineteenth Jud. Cir., 659 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…determine whether appellant’s petition was properly denied. Although there are a number of cases holding that a trial court cannot, without having received evidence, summarily deny a facially sufficient petition for change of name, Casey v. State, 604 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), and cases cited therein, we are not aware of any cases involving this specific situation, in which there was a hearing, but no transcript or findings of fact. If a prisoner’s facially sufficient petition for change of name can…
-
Hoyos v. Singletary, 639 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…provide Hoyos with an opportunity to present evidence and to be heard on the issue of whether or not his reasons for seeking a name change were without ulterior or illegal motive. Gosby v. Third Jud. Cir., 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1991); Casey v. State, 604 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); In re Boyd, 627 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). REVERSED and REMANDED. ANSTEAD and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Brown v. In re Name Change, 611 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ht adversely affect the security interests of the Department of Corrections. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing on this matter, however, the trial court was without any basis for determining the concerns of the Department. See Casey v. State, 604 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J." concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1991)
- Darrel Carnell v. Carnell, 398 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Isom v. The Cir. Court OF the Tenth Jud. Cir., 437 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- In re Petition for Changing Name of Stanley Harvey Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- In re Petition for Name Change from Darrell Lee Keppro to Darrell Lee McQuaid, 573 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)