In re: Dennis, 802 S.E.2d 811

James Gardner Dennis, an inmate with multiple felony convictions including child pornography and sex offenses, petitioned the Greensville County Circuit Court to change his name to James Gardner Wright under Va. Code § 8.01-217.
Dennis disclosed his incarceration and convictions and stated the name change was required by his conversion to the "Native American Faith," asserting a religious tenet to adopt an ancestor's surname.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition, finding Dennis’s criminal history demonstrated lack of "good cause" to accept the application for consideration under subsection (D) of § 8.01-217.
Dennis appealed, arguing that asserting a religious purpose is sufficient "good cause" to require the court to accept and consider the petition, relying on this Court’s prior decision in Stephens v. Commonwealth.
The Virginia Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the denial of a name-change application.
The Supreme Court reversed: the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider Dennis’s alleged religious reason at the threshold; religious grounds constitute good cause to accept the petition for consideration, but statutory preconditions must be proved at a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an incarcerated person/registered sex offender/probationer who alleges a religious reason has "good cause" under § 8.01-217(D) to have the court accept the application for consideration	Dennis: Alleging a religious purpose satisfies "good cause" and requires the court to accept the application for hearing (per Stephens)	Commonwealth/circuit court: Prior convictions and status justify refusing to accept the petition as lacking good cause	Court: Alleged religious motivation constitutes good cause to accept the application; trial court erred by refusing to consider it without evidentiary support
Whether the court may still deny the name change after hearing despite religious motivation	Dennis: If accepted, he should get full consideration; religious basis is not frivolous	Commonwealth: Even if accepted, the court may deny if change would frustrate law enforcement, be fraudulent, or infringe others' rights	Court: After acceptance, petitioner must prove circumstances; court may deny if any of the three statutory preconditions (frustrate law enforcement, fraudulent purpose, infringe rights) are met

Stephens v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 157 (religious purpose suffices as good cause to consider a name-change petition)
In re Brown, 289 Va. 343 (review of statutory interpretation de novo; abuse-of-discretion standard for name-change denials)
Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346 (abuse-of-discretion framework—relevant and improper factors)
AME Fin. Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384 (statutory use of "may" denotes judicial discretion)