Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

in the matter of:

Anthony bryson huber

Case No.: 22BBCP00071

Hearing Date: September 2, 2022

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to reconsider by anthony huber

BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2022, Petitioner Anthony Bryson Huber filed a petition for name change, seeking to change his name to “Anthony James Nickerson.”

On February 23, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause for Name Change. The order states the following: “THE COURT ORDERS 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.” The Court set the hearing date for April 15, 2022.

On March 25, 2022, Petitioner filed a document entitled: “Los Angeles County Probation Department Pretrial Services Bureau Name Change Criminal History Assessment” regarding Anthony Bryson Huber. The document states that Anthony Bryson Huber has 1 total number of arrests, 1 total number of felony convictions, and 0 total number of misdemeanor convictions. The document includes an attached “Criminal History – Arrests” showing: (1) on June 13, 2022, he was charged with misdemeanor theft, but the case was dismissed; and (2) on December 4, 2008, he was charged with felony arson and sentences to 27 months in “WCC.” Anthony Bryson Huber is not a registered sex offender.

On April 15, 2022, the Court held the Order to Show Case re: Name Change. The Court noted that Petitioner failed to appear, though he was given notice of the hearing. The Court reviewed the Criminal History Assessment and noted that Petitioner had a felony conviction. The Court denied the petition for name change.

On August 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner moves for reconsideration of the April 15, 2022 ruling, asking that the Court set aside the prior order and either issue an order granting the name change or setting a new hearing date whereby Petitioner can be heard on the matter.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Petitioner and counsel fail to provide any legal authority upon which the motion for reconsideration is based, such as CCP § 1008. At most, Petitioner provides CCP § 1279.5, but this does not provide any legal basis for reconsideration of a prior denial of a petition.

CCP § 1279.5(a) to (f) states:

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (e) or (f), this title does not abrogate the common law right of a person to change his or her name.

(b) A person under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or sentenced to county jail has the right to petition the court to obtain a name or gender change pursuant to this title or Article 7 (commencing with Section 103425) of Chapter 11 of Part 1 of Division 102 of the Health and Safety Code.

(c) A person under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall provide a copy of the petition for a name change to the department, in a manner prescribed by the department, at the time the petition is filed. A person sentenced to county jail shall provide a copy of the petition for name change to the sheriff's department, in a manner prescribed by the department, at the time the petition is filed.

(d) In all documentation of a person under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or imprisoned within a county jail, the new name of a person who obtains a name change shall be used, and prior names shall be listed as an alias.

(e) Notwithstanding any other law, a court shall deny a petition for a name change pursuant to this title made by a person who is required to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, unless the court determines that it is in the best interest of justice to grant the petition and that doing so will not adversely affect the public safety. If a petition for a name change is granted for an individual required to register as a sex offender, the individual shall, within five working days, notify the chief of police of the city in which he or she is domiciled, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is domiciled in an unincorporated area, and additionally with the chief of police of a campus of a University of California or California State University if he or she is domiciled upon the campus or in any of its facilities.

(f) For the purpose of this section, the court shall use the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) to determine whether or not an applicant for a name change is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code. Each person applying for a name change shall declare under penalty of perjury that he or she is not required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code. 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 as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code.

(CCP § 1279.5(a)-(f).)

Petitioner acknowledges that the Court was correct that he has a felony conviction, but argues that he has never needed to register in any database and he has not committed sex crimes or physically hurt someone. Instead, his felony conviction was for arson in the first degree in 2008/2009. In the moving papers (no declaration provided), Petitioner argues that he came out of the military, had PTSD, and during a hallucination episode, he set the house he was living in on fire on Thanksgiving but lacks any recollection of doing so. Petitioner was sentenced for 27 months and served 18 with all probation waived. Petitioner states that while he was in prison, he received his associate’s degree with honors, pursued a bachelor’s degree in economics after his release, obtained counseling for his PTSD, and has not had an episode for over 10 years. He also argues that he has gone on mission trips to Mexico with his church for the past 14 years and volunteered around the world, and is now pursuing his master’s degree in education. Petitioner argues that he is not trying to defraud creditors or the police and acknowledges his criminal history and that his record, social security number, and fingerprints will reflect his criminal history for the remainder of his life.

The Court notes that no declaration was provided to attest to these facts. Further, Petitioner and his counsel did not appear to the Order to Show Cause hearing to explain these facts to the Court. The Court’s February 23, 2022 Order to Show Cause document ordered all interested persons to appear at the hearing. This is consistent with CCP § 1277(a)(1): “The order shall direct all persons interested in the matter to appear before the court at a time and place specified, which shall be not less than 6 weeks nor more than 12 weeks from the time of making the order, unless the court orders a different time, to show cause why the application for change of name should not be granted.” While the Court may grant the petition without a hearing if no written objections are filed, the Court is not required to do so. (See CCP § 1277(a)(1).)

The Court will grant the motion for reconsideration and re-set the Order to Show Cause so that Petitioner and counsel may appear and explain the reasons for the name change and the past felony conviction.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is granted such that the Court will re-set the Order to Show Cause for Name Change to October 21, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. Petitioner and counsel are both ordered to attend the hearing.

Petitioner shall provide notice of this order.