State Of Louisiana In The Interest Of N.S.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 08, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST
OF N.S. No.2020-CK-01171
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Confidential Party - Applicant Other; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Orleans Juvenile Court Number(s) 2019-339-02-DQ-F,
Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2020-CA-0345;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 08, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
SJC
BJJ
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
12/08/2020 “See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

12/08/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
N
o. 2020-CK-01171
S
TATE IN THE INTEREST OF N.S.
O
N WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
P
ER CURIAM:
W
rit granted. The Orleans Parish Juvenile Court adjudicated N.S., along with
two fellow juveniles, delinquent of violating La. R.S. 14:64.2, relative to carjacking.
The juvenile court issued a written judgment of disposition for the three girls on
February 19, 2020 sentencing them each to “juvenile life” in the custody of the Office
of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 898(A). The court announced that
the girls would be eligible to seek modification after spending four years in custody,
but barred consideration of a motion to modify the disposition to release from OJJ
custody.
1 On appeal, the court of appeal affirmed N.S.’s adjudication and amended her
disposition to remove the erroneously imposed four-year prohibition on modification.
State in the Interest of N.S., 20- 0345, p. 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/5/20), — So.3d. —,
available at 2020 WL 5887281.2
N.S. filed an application for writ of review with this Court arguing her
disposition was excessive. The only upper limits the Children’s Code places on a
1 In pertinent part, the disposition read: “The Court further notes that it will only consider a motion to
modify the disposition to stepped-down custody to non-secure care. The Court will not consider a
motion to modify the disposition to release from Office of Juvenile Justice custody.”
2 The appellate court provided the same amendment to the dispositions of N.S.’s co-defendants. See
State in the Interest of M.R., 20-0347, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/5/20), — So.3d. —, available at 2020
WL 5887222; State in the Interest of M.S., 20-0346, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/5/20), — So.3d. —,
available at 2020 WL 5903502.

2

potential sentence for the crime of carjacking committed by a juvenile over 13 years
old is that it cannot exceed the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense and it
must terminate upon age 21. La. Ch.C. art. 898 (A), (E)(5). The sentencing range for
carjacking is two to 20 years. La. R.S. 14:64.2(B). N.S. was five days shy of her
fourteenth birthday when the crime occurred and her custody commenced. Her
sentence is effectively just over seven years which fits within the limitations provided
for in the Children’s Code. Thus, the sentence is statutorily legal.
A sentence that is statutorily permissible may nevertheless be constitutionally
excessive as applied to an individual defendant. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767
(La.1979). The crime for which N.S. was adjudicated was dangerous, and, although the
girls were unarmed, their actions harmed the victim and may have resulted in serious
injury. However, this is the first time N.S. was arrested or adjudicated for a crime.
Unlike her co-defendants, she has no prior experience with a probationary sentence.
Regardless, because we find errors in the disposition, it is premature for this Court to
decide whether her sentence is excessive.
We find that the disposition imposed by the juvenile court contained two illegal
provisions: first, the four-year prohibition on modification, and, second, the restriction
on consideration of a motion to modify to release from OJJ custody. The court of
appeal corrected the first illegal provision by removing the four -year prohibition.
However, the restriction on modification to release also violates the Children’s Code,
which provides juvenile courts with general authority to modify sentences after the
entry of any order of disposition. See La. Ch.C. arts. 909, 910, 911; La. R.S. 15:906.
Similar restrictions in other delinquency dispositions have been overturned by
appellate courts. See, e.g., State in the Interest of D.B., 14-0085, p. 15 (La. App. 3 Cir.
5/07/14), 141 So.3d 296, 306 (“Considering the language in La. Ch.C. art. 898(B)

3

concerning the possibility of parole, the language in La. Ch.C. art. 909 concerning the
court's power to modify a sentence, the language of La. R.S. 15:906 concerning the
Department of Corrections' authority to seek early release for a juvenile, the language
in La. R.S. 15:906 concerning the legislature's clear i ntent for rehabilitation for all
juveniles except those who fall under La. Ch.C. art. 897.1, and the first circuit’s
opinion in J.C., the juvenile court erred in imposing the present Juvenile’s disposition
without benefit of parole or modification of sentence.”); see also State in the Interest of
J.C., 09-2000 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/15/10) (unpub’d), available at 2010 WL 2802104;
State in the Interest of Guy, 413 So.2d 657 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we
vacate the disposition and remand the case back to the juvenile court for imposition of
a new disposition consistent with this order. In imposing a new disposition, the court
may consider whether the previously imposed disposition was excessive, as argued by
the juvenile in her application to this Court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED