STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JAWAN MYLES (2026)

Relator, the State of Louisiana (the “State”), has filed an application for supervisory writ requesting this Court vacate the district court's decision to amend Defendant's sentence. For the following reasons, we grant the writ, vacate the district court's ruling, and remand for the district court to hold a hearing on the State's Rule to Revoke in accordance with the guidance from this Court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 10, 2025, Defendant pled guilty to the charges of (1) Simple Obstruction of a Highway, (2) Aggravated Flight from an Officer with Life Endangerment, (3) Child Desertion, and (4) No Child Restraint System. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Defendant received a four-month sentence in the Orleans Justice Center, a $100 fine, a two-year sentence in the Department of Corrections with two years suspended, and two years of active probation. On February 25, 2026, Defendant's probation officer moved to revoke his probation based on a new felony arrest. The parties appeared before the district court on June 16, 2026, and the district court offered to amend Defendant's original two-year sentence in the Department of Corrections to a one-year sentence if he agreed to self-revoke without a hearing. The Defendant self-revoked, and, over the State's objection, the district court amended Defendant's sentence to one year in the Department of Corrections. This writ application followed.

DISCUSSION

The State raises two assignments of error in its writ application, both of which assert the district court erred in amending Defendant's original sentence. Typically, the appellate court will review a ruling on a probation violation for an abuse of discretion because the district court has wide discretion in determining an appropriate sanction for a probation violation. State v. Jackson, 2016-0803, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/23/17), 212 So. 3d 1177, 1178 (citation omitted). A judge abuses his discretion if he erroneously applies the law. See State v. Thomas, 2013-0816, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/19/14), 138 So. 3d 92, 97 (citation omitted). When the law is erroneously applied, the appellate court gives no deference to the lower court's ruling. See id. Rather, because the decision presents a question of law, the appellate court reviews the decision de novo and determines whether the decision was legally correct. See State v. Junior, 2023-212, pp. 2-3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/31/24), 380 So. 3d 724, 727 (citation omitted). This writ presents a question of law—that is, whether the district court had the legal authority to amend Defendant's sentence. Therefore, we review this matter de novo.

The State argues that the district court did not have the authority to amend Defendant's sentence pursuant to La. C.Cr. P. art. 881. The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a court may amend or change a sentence prior to the beginning of its execution. La. C.Cr. P. art. 881(A). After its execution has begun, courts have limited power to amend the sentence. See La. C.Cr. P. art. 881(B)(1). However, a district court may still amend a felony sentence being served without hard labor in order to “place the defendant on supervised probation.” Id. Defendant was already on supervised probation, and, under the clear language of the article, the district court did not have the authority to amend his sentence further.

Nevertheless, the district court directs our attention to La. C.Cr. P. art. 900. This statute outlines the sanctions a district court may impose upon finding that a defendant violated his probation, which includes revoking the probation. Id.¹ If the district court chooses to revoke a defendant's probation, then “the defendant shall serve the sentence suspended, with or without credit for the time served on probation at the discretion of the court. If the imposition of sentence was suspended, the defendant shall serve the sentence imposed by the court at the revocation hearing.” La. C.Cr. P. art. 900(A)(5). The article makes clear that if probation is revoked, then the defendant shall serve the sentence suspended. Id. (Emphasis added). In this case, Defendant's original suspended sentence was for two years, not one. Therefore, under the plain language of the article, this is the sentence Defendant must serve if his probation is revoked.

In its per curiam, the district court relies on the second sentence of La. C.Cr. P. art. 900(A)(5), which provides that the defendant “shall serve the sentence imposed by the court at the revocation hearing.” The district court asserts that this language vests in it the discretion to impose a lesser sentence. This interpretation is misguided. While La. C.Cr. P. art. 900 gives the district court the discretion to impose lesser sanctions for a probation violation, that discretion is limited if the district court chooses to revoke the probation. That is, the district court only has the discretion to give the defendant credit for the time served on probation, not to amend the original sentence imposed. State v. Martin, 2004-1188, p. 7 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/16/05), 898 So. 2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Stine, 495 So. 2d 399, 401 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1986)) (“The mandatory language of this article ․ clearly requires that defendant serve the suspended sentence which was originally imposed. The trial court has no discretion to amend or otherwise change this sentence except to give credit for time served on probation.”); but see also La. C.Cr. P. art. 901 (further limiting the district court's discretion for certain probation violations). This Court is unaware of any cases wherein a district court was able to impose a new sentence after revoking a defendant's probation. Further, when reading La. C.Cr. P. art. 900 in conjunction with La. C.Cr. P. art. 881, the law does not support the outcome reached by the district court. Thus, we find the district court clearly erred in amending Defendant's sentence.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the district court's June 16, 2026 ruling revoking Defendant's probation and amending his original two-year sentence. We further remand this matter back to the district court to hold a hearing on the State's rule to revoke probation and rule in accordance with the guidance from this opinion.

VACATED; REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   If the district court finds that a defendant violated a condition of his probation, the district court may (1) reprimand and warn the defendant, (2) order that supervision be intensified, (3) add additional conditions to the probation, (4) order the defendant be committed to a community rehabilitation center, or (5) revoke the probation. La. C.Cr. P. art 900(A)(1)-(5).

Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott