Judge Michael Shultz, Case 22CMCP00199 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCP00199, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCP00199 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: A

22CMCP00199 In the Matter of: MICHELLEI GENISE HAYES

Thursday, January 19, 2023, 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME

The court has considered the Petition filed on November 7, 2022 by Michellei Genise Hayes to change name to Michellei Rich Cephus for “personal/business marketing” reasons. The court has considered the Criminal History Assessment Report filed on January 6, 2022, which supports denial of the petition. Petitioner averred that Petitioner she is not under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (in state prison or on parole). However, Petitioner’s criminal history reveals a felony conviction on June 15, 2020 in Case No. LB NA100053-01 for obtaining personal identification for unlawful use (Penal Code § 532A). Although the criminal history reveals that Petitioner was placed on three years of formal probation on June 20, 2020, it is likely that probation has expired as a matter of law. Penal Code §1203.1.

The assessment also reveals recent convictions in the State of Georgia in Case No. 19CR01503 (10/25/2019) and Case No. 20R67 (8/13/2020) for matters relating to fraud and forgery and for which Petitioner is currently on active probation for five years in each case.

The court has discretion to deny the petition where “there are substantial and principled reasons for denying [it]. … (In re Ross (1937) 8 Cal.2d 608, 610, 67 P.2d 94 [need some substantial reason for denial]; Lee v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 515, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 763 [court may properly deny petition if name adopted to defraud, intentionally confuse, or intrude into someone's privacy or violate recognized public policy. In re Arnett (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 654, 661. The Criminal History Assessment described above supports denial of the petition.

Additionally, there is no evidence that Petitioner has complied with the requirements for publication of the Order to Show Cause as required by statute. Code Civ. Proc., § 1277. Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the petition.