306 So.3d 487
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Dec. 3, 2019 three girls (M.S., age 12; N.S., 13; M.R., 16) lured a woman into their car, forcibly removed her, beat her, stole and crashed her vehicle; all three were arrested within an hour.
- Juvenile court refused the girls’ requests to plead guilty because of case gravity; they were adjudicated delinquent for carjacking.
- At disposition the court placed M.S. (12 at offense) in secure custody with Office of Juvenile Justice until age 18 (effectively up to six years) and ordered she receive credit for time served.
- The juvenile court additionally prohibited modification of M.S.’s disposition for four years.
- M.S. appealed, raising two issues: (1) the four‑year restriction on modification exceeded the court’s authority; and (2) the disposition (secure custody until 18) violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court could restrict modification of disposition for four years | M.S.: the court unlawfully renounced its power to modify where art. 909 permits modification except as limited by art. 897.1, and art. 897.1 does not apply to a 12‑year‑old charged with carjacking. | State: juvenile court had broad discretion to restrict modification. | Court: restriction exceeded statutory authority (art. 909 read with 897.1); deletion of the four‑year non‑modification condition and amendment of disposition. |
| Whether commitment to secure custody until age 18 (juvenile life sentence) was constitutionally excessive | M.S.: six years in secure custody is excessive given her age, remorse, lack of severe prior record, prospects for community programs, and concerns about distant facility conditions. | State: court considered La. Ch.C. art. 901 factors and imposed the least restrictive disposition consistent with the child’s needs and public safety. | Court: disposition was within statutory limits, was supported by the record, and not constitutionally excessive; affirmed disposition as amended (with modification restriction removed). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. J.R.S.C., 788 So.2d 424 (La. 2001) (juvenile may move to modify disposition while the disposition remains in force)
- State in Interest of H.L.F., 713 So.2d 810 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998) (illegal juvenile dispositions may be corrected on appeal by amendment where defect does not involve discretion)
- State v. Brogdon, 457 So.2d 616 (La. 1984) (constitutional excessiveness standard: sentence grossly disproportionate or purposeless imposition of pain)
- State in Interest of R.C., 208 So.3d 962 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (framework for reviewing juvenile dispositions for excessiveness: must first assess whether least restrictive disposition was imposed under La. Ch.C. art. 901)