CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Doug Kisaka, in propria persona, appeals the trial court’s order sustaining respondents’ demurrer and dismissing all causes of action without leave to amend. The trial court ruled that res judicata barred appellant’s claims, which had previously been asserted in federal court, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The principal issue on appeal is whether the prior dismissal in federal court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) rule 41, subdivision (b) was a “‘final judgment on the merits’” that had res judicata effect in state court. The trial court ruled that the prior dismissal in federal court due to appellant’s persistent failure to comply with court rules and discovery orders was a “judgment on the merits” under California law. Appellant was thus precluded from reasserting his claims in state court. We affirm.

We reconsider this case on remand from the California Supreme Court, which vacated our prior decision and directed us to reconsider in light of People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857 (Buycks). We deem the appeal a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, grant the petition, order the sentence vacated, and remand for resentencing.

Maria Acevedo died intestate. Victor Acevedo, Maria’s brother, appeals from an order of the Superior Court appointing Respondent Arthur Charchian as Maria’s personal representative responsible for administering her estate.
The trial court appointed Charchian pursuant to a petition filed by Jorge Hernandez Perez (Perez), Maria’s husband. Victor objected to Charchian’s appointment and filed a competing petition seeking his own appointment as Maria’s representative. The trial court denied Victor’s petition and granted Perez’s, appointing Charchian to be Maria’s personal representative as Perez’s nominee.

A jury found Michael Staton (Staton) guilty of murder and of attempted murder and found true gun and gang allegations. On appeal, Staton contends that his Batson/Wheeler challenge was erroneously denied, that the jury could have improperly found him guilty of attempted murder based on a misapplication of the transferred intent doctrine, and that the true findings on the gang enhancements must be reversed. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment of conviction, but we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 620 ((2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2). We also remand for the trial court to hold a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 284 (Franklin).)

A jury found Phillip Tucker guilty of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and willful infliction of corporal injury. On appeal Tucker contends: (1) the corporal injury charge must be reduced or retried because the jury may have based the conviction on a legally insufficient theory; (2) the trial court erred in denying his request for a free trial transcript to help him prepare a motion for new trial; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte revoke Tucker’s in propria persona status; and (4) a one-year prior prison term enhancement (Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b)) must be stricken because the underlying conviction was designated a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 during the pendency of this appeal. The People argue the abstract of judgment must be amended to include two fines that were orally pronounced in court.

M.B. (Mother) seeks writ relief from an order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. She contends the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). We deny the petition on the merits.

In 2017, defendant Keijona Michael Jackson pleaded no contest to two counts of possessing methamphetamine for sale and was sentenced to a split sentence consisting of two years in county jail and four years of mandatory supervision, which sentence included a three-year enhancement based on a previous conviction for methamphetamine possession for sale. In October, the Governor signed legislation eliminating the three-year enhancement for Jackson’s previous conviction with an effective date of January 1, 2018. Jackson moved to strike the enhancement, arguing that he was entitled to the retroactive benefit of the new legislation, and the trial court denied the motion and reinstated Jackson’s mandatory supervision. We affirm.

Following defendant’s plea of no contest to felony possession of controlled substances where prisoners are kept, the trial court sentenced him to 11 years in state prison. We affirm.

J.G. (Mother) and A.G. (Father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to their two sons, A.G. (A.) and J.G. (J.). Mother and Father contend the juvenile court erred in finding their sons were adoptable. We disagree and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Matt Mirabella (Mirabella) appeals from the trial court’s order granting a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 filed by defendant and respondent Cristina Holloway (Holloway). The court awarded Holloway $2,000 in sanctions against Mirabella’s counsel based on Mirabella’s unsuccessful section 473, subdivision (b) (Section 473(b)) motion that sought relief from the trial court’s order granting Holloway’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees following the sustaining of her demurrer to Mirabella’s complaint. We affirm.

This is the third appeal Chantal Blosse has filed in her divorce proceedings. In two prior (consolidated) appeals, we reversed in part the judgment entered after a bench trial and several post-judgment orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings on limited issues. (In re Marriage of Blosse (Nov. 6, 2018, A14692, A1488256) [unpublished].) Chantal now appeals a post-judgment order directing the San Mateo County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) to disburse funds back to her former husband, Alain Blosse. She argues the order was wrong, because the trial court miscalculated the amount of child and spousal support arrears her former husband owed her. No respondent’s brief has been filed.
We affirm the court’s order in all respects save one, and remand with directions.

Defendant and appellant Matthew Knoot (Knoot) appeals from the trial court’s issuance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 restraining order requested by plaintiff and respondent law firm Klatte, Budensiek, Young-Agriesti, LLP (KBY), on behalf of its employee, attorney Yeun C. Yim (Yim). We affirm.

Appellant Paul J. Southwick, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 alleging a citation issued to him by the Contractors State License Board (Board) was “not issued in accordance or conformity of state law.” In his petition, Southwick named as respondents the Board and various individuals, including Richard Laguens, who had filed a complaint with the Board that apparently led to the citation.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Charles Levon Sells (appellant) of robbery. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.