State of Louisiana Versus Ashley L. Reed

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-2

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ASHLEY L. REED COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

January 16, 2025

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE ASHLEY L. REED

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE R. CHRISTOPHER COX, III,
DIVISION "B", NUMBER 22-4483

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Ashley Reed, seeks this Court’s supervisory review of the trial court’s

November 14, 2024 ruling which denied her Motion to Reconsider Probation

Revocation, and the trial court’s December 5, 2024 ruling which denied her Motion for

New Trial on the Order Denying the Motion to Reconsider Probation Revocation. For

the following reasons, we deny the writ application.

On March 28, 2023, relator pled guilty to aggravated battery in violation of La.

R.S. 14:34. She was subsequently sentenced to two years imprisonment at hard labor.

Relator’s sentence was “deferred” and she was placed on two years of active probation.

On November 7, 2023, a Motion and Order for Hearing to Revoke Probation was filed

in relator’s case in the trial court after a warrant for her arrest was issued for domestic

abuse battery-strangulation. Following hearings on November 30, 2023 and December

13, 2023, the trial court found that relator violated her probation because she failed to

“refrain from criminal conduct.” The trial court thereupon sentenced relator to two

years imprisonment with the Department of Corrections. Relator sought supervisory

review of this ruling with this Court, and on March 22, 2024, this Court denied her writ

application, finding:

Under the facts of this case and considering the testimony and
evidence presented at the revocation hearings, we find that the trial judge
did not abuse his discretion in determining that defendant violated her
probation conditions by failing to refrain from criminal conduct. Further,
we find that the evidence presented supports the trial court’s factual finding
that defendant’s conduct constituted commission of the felony crime of
domestic abuse battery by strangulation in violation of La. R.S. 14:35.3(L)
sufficient to support the revocation of defendant’s probation. See La.
C.Cr.P. art. 901.

See State v. Reed, 24-KH-13 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/22/24) (unpublished writ

disposition).

Subsequently, on October 16, 2024, relator filed a Motion to Reconsider

Probation Revocation, seeking reconsideration of her probation revocation based

on the subsequent reduction of her charge for domestic abuse battery to a

misdemeanor offense. On November 14, 2024, the trial court denied the motion,

noting that in this Court’s writ disposition, it pointed out that the trial court

revoked relator’s probation based on her actions and her failure to refrain from

criminal conduct, not simply based upon her new arrest.

Thereafter, on November 19, 2024, relator filed a Motion for New Trial on the

Order Denying the Motion to Reconsider Probation Revocation, requesting that the trial

court vacate its November 14, 2024 ruling and set a hearing on relator’s Motion to

Reconsider Probation Revocation. On December 5, 2024, the trial court denied relator’s

motion for new trial, finding that relator did not meet the requirements for a motion for

new trial and her probation revocation was previously reviewed by this Court.

In this writ application, relator re-urges her claim that the trial court erred by

revoking her probation. Relator argues that her probation officer testified during the

revocation hearing that he would not have filed a motion to revoke relator’s probation if

she was not charged with a felony offense. Since her arrest for a felony offense was

subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor after her probation was revoked, relator argues

the trial court erred by not reconsidering the revocation of her probation, or, in the

alternative, conducting a hearing on the matter.

Upon review, we find no error in the trial court’s rulings. As noted, this Court

previously reviewed the trial court’s ruling revoking relator’s probation. This Court

considered the transcripts of the revocation hearings, wherein the trial court noted that

although the district attorney had not yet made a decision on what, if any, charges to

pursue against relator, the trial court still found that relator had violated the terms of her

probation. Following this Court’s disposition, relator did not file a writ application with

the Louisiana Supreme Court. If relator’s current writ application is considered an

application for rehearing, it is untimely as it was filed more than fourteen days after

March 22, 2024—the date this Court rendered judgment in 24-KH-13. See Uniform

Rules–Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-18.2(1). Additionally Uniform Rules–Courts of Appeal

Rule 2-18.7 allows for a rehearing a writ only after it has been granted on the merits.

Finally, to the extent that relator filed a motion for new trial pursuant to the interests of

justice, citing La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(B), a probation revocation hearing is not part of a

criminal prosecution. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1759-

60, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); see also La. C.Cr.P. art. 853, which provides that a “motion

for a new trial must be filed and disposed of before sentence.”

Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s rulings denying relator’s Motion

to Reconsider Probation Revocation and Motion for New Trial on the Order Denying

the Motion to Reconsider Probation Revocation. This writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 16th day of January, 2025.

JGG
FHW
MEJ

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 01/16/2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

25-KH-2
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
R. Christopher Cox, III (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent) Anthony L. Glorioso (Relator)

MAILED
Brittany Beckner (Respondent)
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
(Respondent)
District Attorney
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053