JAMES DINKENS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 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.
A convicted felon's civil rights restoration is not required to maintain a petition for name change if the petition does not violate constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to the courts.
Appellant, a convicted felon, filed a petition for name change. The trial court abated the action, relying on precedent that required restoration of c…
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
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
Appellant, James Dinkens, seeks review of an order abating a civil action. We reverse.
Appellant, a convicted felon, filed a petition for name change in the Tenth Judicial Circuit. The trial court entered an order abating the petition until appellant’s civil rights were restored. The court entered its order on the basis of Watts v. Buck, 454 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), in which we held that section 944.292, Florida Statutes (1983), prevents a convicted felon from maintaining a civil action in Florida’s courts until his civil rights have been restored.
We acknowledge that the trial court merely fulfilled its duty to follow precedent when it entered its order. In McCuiston v. Wanicka, 483 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), however, decided subsequent to Watts, we agreed with the decision of our sister court in Lloyd v. Farkash, 476 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In Lloyd, the first district did not challenge our interpretation of section 944.292, but found that the result Violated constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to the courts.
On the basis of McCuiston, we reverse the trial court order abating appellant’s petition for a name change. In doing so, we distinguish our decision in Watts, as was done in Lloyd and McCuiston, on the basis that the constitutional issue was not presented in Watts.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aiani v. Boore, 489 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…owever, this court has held that section 944.292, Florida Statutes (1983), violates article 1, section 21, of the Florida Constitution, which guarantees access to the courts to all persons. Dinkens v. The Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, 489 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); McCuiston v. Wanicka, 483 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We, therefore, reverse the order striking appellant’s motion for new trial, and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. Reversed and remanded. RYDER, C.J., and DANA…
Authorities Cited
- McCUISTON v. Wanicka, 483 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Lloyd v. Farkash, 476 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Watts v. The Honorable Morison Buck, 454 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)