In Re: Patric Le June Harris--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-93-096-CV

IN RE PATRIC LE JUNE HARRIS,

Appellant

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 27,885

O P I N I O N

Patric Le June Harris appeals the denial of his pro se Petition For Name Change. // Harris, alleging that he is Muslim, sought a name change for enlightenment and religious purposes. His petition, however, also acknowledged that he was serving a fifteen-year sentence at the Hughes Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

The trial court denied the petition because the requested name change would be in violation of section 32.22 of the Family Code, as amended in 1991. // Specifically, the court found that Harris was a convicted felon who had not been discharged for at least two years and that a name change would not be in the interest of the public. According to section 32.22:

(a) For good cause shown the court shall order a change of name for any person other than a person finally convicted of a felony as requested if it finds that the change is in the interest or to the benefit of the petitioner and in the interest of the public.

(b) A court may order a change of name for a person finally convicted of a felony if, in addition to the requirements of Subsection (a), the person has:

(1) received a certificate of discharge by the pardons and paroles division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or completed a period of probation ordered by a court and at least two calendar years have elapsed from the date of the receipt of discharge or completion of probation; or

(2) been pardoned. //

Before September 1, 1991, section 32.22 simply provided, "For good cause shown the court shall order a change of name as requested if it finds that the change is in the interest or to the benefit of the petitioner." //

In a single point of error Harris contends that Senate Bill 334, 72nd Leg., R.S., effective September 1, 1991, which amended sections 32.21 and 32.22 of the Texas Family Code, was unconstitutional because the caption to the bill failed to give the public fair notice of its contents. //

However, in the general election conducted on November 4, 1986, article three, section thirty-five, of the Texas Constitution was amended to read as follows:

Section 35. (a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.

(b) The rules of procedure of each house shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.

(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title. //

As a result, Texas courts no longer have the power to declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional due to an insufficiency of its caption. // Accordingly, we overrule Harris' single point of error.

We affirm the judgment.

BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 8, 1993

Do not publish