State of Louisiana Versus Richondra Preston-Scott

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-KP-367

STATE OF LOUISIANA

versus

RICHONDRA PRESTON-SCOTT

IN RE RICHONDRA PRESTON-SCOTT
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE CONNIE M.
AUCOIN, DIVISION "C", No. 2025-MS-98816

September 21, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED

Relator, Richondra Preston-Scott, seeks review of the district court’s May 15,
2026 misdemeanor adjudication to two counts of resisting an officer and one count of
interfering with a law enforcement investigation. The district court sentenced
Defendant to six (6) months in the parish prison, with all but ten (10) days suspended,
placed Defendant on one (1) year of inactive probation, and awarded credit for one
(1) day previously served. The remaining nine (9) days were initially ordered to be
served over three designated weekends.

On May 29, 2026, Defendant filed an Expedited Motion to Reconsider
Sentence Based on Medical Necessity, and execution of the custodial portion of the
sentence was stayed pending a contradictory hearing. Following the July 28, 2026
contradictory hearing, the district court granted reconsideration as to the timing of the
remaining nine (9) days of incarceration and ordered those days to be served over
three weekends in April 2027, at the conclusion of Defendant’s probationary period.
All other conditions of sentence remained in effect.

Relator now invokes this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, seeking review
of the district court’s denial of her May 15, 2026 motion for continuance and the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of her three convictions.

The trial court rendered its verdict finding the Relator guilty of a misdemeanor
offense on June 2, 2026. Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 912.l(C), Relator’s exclusive
remedy to seek review of this non-appealable misdemeanor conviction is by
application for a supervisory writ to this Court. Relator timely filed a written Notice
of Intent to Seek Supervisory Writs in the district court, and the trial court signed an
order setting the original return date deadline for July 2, 2026. However, the trial
transcript was not completed or delivered to counsel for Relator until July 14, 2026,
which was after the expiration of the original return date. Relator then filed a Motion
for Extension of Return Date on July 28, 2026. The trial court granted the motion and
signed an order resetting the return date to August 12, 2026. This writ application was
filed with the Clerk of Court for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal on the extended
return date.

Louisiana Uniform Rule of the Courts of Appeal 4-3 provides that the trial judge
shall set a return date not exceeding 30 days from the date of notice of judgment in
criminal cases. URCA 4-3. Critically, the rule provides: “Upon proper showing, the
trial court or the Court of Appeal may extend the time for filing the application upon
the filing of a motion for an extension of the return date by the applicant, filed within
the original or an extended return date period.” URCA 4-3. The rule further states that
“[a]n application not filed in the Court of Appeal within the time so fixed or extended
shall not be considered, in the absence of a showing that the delay in filing was not due
to the applicant’s fault.” URCA 4-3.

Courts consistently and uniformly have held that a trial court is without authority
to extend a return date that has already expired. See, e.g., State v. Sutton, 374 So.2d
1218 (La.1979), holding that where the State was not granted an extension during the
original return period, any subsequent extension was ineffective and rendered the writ
application untimely.

This Court applied this same rule directly in State v. Bourg, 16-313 (La. App. 5
Cir. 6/29/16), 196 So.3d 737, finding the writ application untimely where the defendant
did not file his motion for extension before the original return date. This court held that
because the defendant “did not timely file his writ application with this Court within a
period of thirty days from the ruling at issue, nor within the later-established original
return date, and did not include in his writ application proper documentation of any
additional extensions of time granted by the trial court within the original return date,”
the writ application was untimely.

The Second Circuit addressed the transcript unavailability argument directly
in Lafferty v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36,119, p. 2 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/02), 806 So.2d 1000,
1002-3, holding that instead of relying on an unauthorized attempt to extend the return
date, the applicant “either should have filed within the original return date and
requested the Court of Appeal to postpone ruling on the application until the transcript
was added, or should have filed a timely request for an extension of the return date
based on the unavailability of the transcript.”

For these reasons, this writ is not considered, as it is untimely.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 21st day of September, 2026.

SMC
JGG
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. TRAN
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 09/21/2026 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:

26-KP-367
E-NOTIFIED
29th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Connie M. Aucoin (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Caitlyn L. Mayer (Relator)

MAILED
Honorable Joel T. Chaisson, II
(Respondent)
David L. Chaisson (Respondent)
Assistant District Attorney
Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 680
Hahnville, LA 70057