NO. 07-08 -019 1-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 24 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF RO BERT THOM AS B AR NE S AKAROBERTLINCOLN JONES, JR.

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 743 93- D; H ON ORABLE DO N EM ER SON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellantRo bert T hom as Barne s, a/k/a Ro bert Linco ln Jone s, Jr., procee ding pro se, appeals f ro m the tr ial court ’s judg ment deny ing his peti ti on to rest ore hi s o ri g ina l name. T hrou gh one issue, app ellant cont end s the trial court abuse d its discretion by den y ing his re q uest
. W e di sag re e, an d aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. App ellantf iled a pro se p eti t io n h e e n t itled Pe tition to Restore Original Name, in w hic h he ass erted h is bi rt h name was Rob ert Li ncol n J ones, Jr
. W hen he was l ater adopted , hi s n ame was chang ed to R ober t Thomas Bar nes. Byhis peti ti on, h e s oug ht t o hav e hi s o ri g ina l name rest ored.2

Cha pter 45 o f the Fami ly

Code g ov er ns peti ti ons for c hang e of name of chi ldren and adul ts. F or

adul ts, the v erif ie d p e ti ti on req uirements i ncl ude, int er al ia, a s tatement w hether the peti ti oner

has been the subj ectof a final felo ny

conv icti on. Tex . F am. C ode Ann . § 45. 102 (Ve rn o n 2 0 02). T he Cod e f urthe r prov ides th at th e cou rt may order a chang e of name for a pet it ion er w it h a final felony conv icti on if, i n addi ti on to meeti ng the g eneral re qui re ments, the peti ti oner ( 1) has recei v ed a cer ti ficat e of di sc harg e by the pardons and parole s d iv is ion of the Texas Dep artment of C ri minal Ju sti ce or co mplet ed a per iod of probati on ordered bya cour t and not les s t han two y ears h av e pas sed from the d a t e o f t h e re c e ip to f

d is c h a rg e o r c o m p le t io n o f p ro b a t io n ; o r (2 ) h a s b e e n p a rd o n e d
. T e x. Fam . Code Ann. § 45.1 03(b ) ( Verno n 20 05). App ellant ’s petition to the trial court did notex pressly s t a t e h e had bee n f inally conv icted o f a felony , but other infor mati on in the p eti ti on mak es cl ear thati s t he c ase, and appel lan t doe s n ot di sput e tha t fact. H e is inc arcerated in a uni t of the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. N or does he dis pute that he has notrecei v ed a certif icate of discha rg e or oth erw ise me t the requireme nts of Fam ily Code § 45 .10 3(b). The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment al so makes cl ear thati s o ne of the re asons hi s peti ti on was deni ed. App ellantargues Family Code Chapt e r 4 5 d o e s not ap ply to his pe tition. He attempt s to dist ing uis h a chang e of name, w hic h he ack now led g es is g ov er ned by C hapter 45, f ro m his req uestto restore the name he w as g iv en at bir th. He arg ues he did not seek a na me chan ge, but sim ply the restoratio n of his origi nal name
. How ever, pleadin gs are g ov er ned by

the subs tanc e of the re li ef re q uest ed, not the name appli ed. See S tate Bar3

of T exas v. Hear d, 603 S.W .2d 8 29, 8 33 ( Tex . 198 0 ) (h o ld ing thatco urts loo k t o the subs tanc e of a p le a fo r reli ef to det er mine the n ature of the ple adi ng , not merely at the form of ti tl e gi ven to it ); Hon g Kong D ev. , Inc. v. N

guyen , 229 S.W .3d 4 15, 4 30 n. 6 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2007, no p et.)( ind ic ati ng sa me). The s ubst ance of the reli ef st appel lan t as ked of the tr ial co urt was a ch ang e i n hi s l eg al name from R ober t Thomas Barne s to Robe rt Lincoln Jo nes, Jr. T he tria l c o urt did no t err by requir ing appe llant’s compl ian ce with § 4 5 .103 as a co ndi ti on of the re li ef he sou g ht. See In re Mayol, 137 S.W .3d 1 03 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1 Dist.] 2 004 , no pe t.) (applying Chapt er 45 to request st to c hang e name t o bi rt h name)
. As au th or i ty

t he t r i al c ou rt ha d th e po w er t o res to re hi s o r i g i na l n am e w i th ou t his com pliance w ith the requirem ent s of § 45.1 03, app ellantcites In r e Er icks on, 547 S.W .2d 357 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 1977 , no wr it.). T he case doe s not sup port ap pellan t’s th posi ti on. The cour

t there found tha t t he pet it ion er Er ic ks on s ati sfied the req uirements of the s tatut e the n g ov er nin g ch ang es of name. Id
. a t 359. Itrev ersed the t ri al cour t and rend ered the request ed n am e cha nge, bu t not hing in the case sugg ests the app ellate court woul d hav e done so if the peti ti on had not sat is fied all the re q uirements of the s tatut e. For the s ame reason , Er

icks on actual ly

su ppor ts the t ri al cour

t’ s denia l of appell ant’ s p eti ti on, w hic h he ack now led g es did not meet t he F amil y C ode’ s req uirements
. As Er icks on also hold s, a perso n do es no t have the a bsolu te right to c h a nge his na me by c ou rt orde r . 54 7 S. W .2 d at 35 9. W he th er a pe ti ti on for a na me c ha nge is g ra nted is a matter

of jud ic ial di sc re ti on. I d
. a t 358. S e ea l s oCh a v e z v . Ch a v e z, 2694

S.W .3d 763, 768 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 2008, no pet .) ; In re Mayol, 137 S.W .3d a t 105
. The tes t for abuse of dis creti on i s w hether the cour t acted w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s and pr inc ipl es, i .e. w hether the tr ial co urt acted a rb it ra ri ly or unreason abl y . Dow

ner v. Aquam ar

ineOper ator s, Inc ., 701 S.W .2d 238, 241-4 2 (Tex . 198 5) ; Ch a v e z, 269 S. W .3d at 76 8. The t ri al cour

t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by deny ing appel lan t’ s p eti ti on. Ap pe l l an t al s o an al og i z es h i s a tt em ptt o res to re hi s o r i g i na l n am e to t he n am e chang es author iz ed on divorce under the Fa m ilyC ode. Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 6.706 ( Ve r no n 20 06 ) ; Tex
. F am . C od e An n. § 4 5. 10 5 ( Ve r no n 20 08 )
. Bu t ne i th er are th os e na me chang es mandatory. U n d e r both sta tutes , t he c our t may deny a req uestto chang e a party’s na me t o one t he party pre v iously use d if t he court state s a rea son for t he den ial in the d ecree. Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 6.706( a) ( Ver non 200 6) ; Tex . F am. C ode An n. § 45.105( a) ( Ver non 200 8)
. Last ly , app ell ant a rg ues he is not t ry ing to “h ide anythi ng ” or co mmit any

fraud by re tur nin g to the u se of his or ig ina l name. He a sserts he has us ed bot h names ov er the y ears, an d tha t law

enforcem entagencies are f ully a wa re o f

h is use of

both nam es. All that w ell may

be t ru e. But that does not c hang e the fact a ppel lan t hasnot met th e re q uirements i mposed by st atute for t he reli ef he has req uest ed. F in d in g t h e t ri a l c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c re t io n b y d e n yin g a p p e ll a n t ’s p e t it io n , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice