Background
Richmond Boyd, Jr. and Kaina J. Boyd obtained permanent protective orders against Kenneth P. Johnson in 2018 after alleging stalking and harassment. Johnson subsequently pursued several unsuccessful efforts to amend, annul, dissolve, or obtain appellate review of the orders.
In 2023, Johnson again moved to dissolve the protective orders. The Boyds opposed the motions and sought contempt findings and sanctions, alleging continued violations and repetitive filings. After a contradictory hearing, the trial court denied Johnson’s motions, found him in contempt, imposed a suspended 30-day jail sentence subject to one year of unsupervised probation, and ordered him to pay court costs and $1,500 in attorney fees. Johnson appealed the judgment entered in Kaina Boyd’s case.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the October 27, 2023 judgment. Johnson’s pro se brief contained no assignments of error or argument, while his counseled supplemental brief raised six assignments directed solely at the original 2018 protective orders or the 2021 denial of his mandamus petition—not at the 2023 judgment under review.
Because Johnson identified no error concerning the appealed judgment, the court found no issue properly presented for review. It relied on its earlier decision affirming the identical judgment in Richmond Boyd’s case and assessed appellate costs to Johnson.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must assign and argue errors concerning the particular judgment before the appellate court.
- Challenges to earlier protective-order and mandamus rulings did not place those rulings before the court in this appeal.
- The denial of dissolution, contempt finding, suspended jail sentence, attorney-fee award, and assessment of costs remained in effect.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate review is confined to properly presented challenges to the judgment actually appealed. Repeating objections to earlier rulings does not supply a basis to reverse a later judgment when the appellant identifies no error in that judgment.