Background
This supervisory writ application arose from a juvenile delinquency proceeding in the 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, docketed there as No. J-16967. The child, identified only as E.K., sought review after the juvenile court revoked his probation and ordered the original six-month sentence into execution, placing him in the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice.
The order reflects that the revocation proceeded without the notice required for a probation-revocation motion. The child instead received notice framed as a rule to show cause for contempt. The State conceded on review that the statutory notice requirement had not been satisfied before probation was revoked.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit granted the writ. Quoting La. Ch. Code art. 913(A), the court explained that a motion to revoke a child’s probation must be accompanied by a supporting affidavit specifying the claimed violations forming the basis of the revocation, and that the child is entitled to a copy of both the motion and the affidavit. Because the record showed, and the State conceded, that Article 913’s notice requirement was not met before revocation, the revocation could not stand on that basis.
The court further held that, because the matter arose out of the delinquency proceeding and the child had received notice of a rule to show cause for contempt, the proceeding was governed by La. Ch. Code art. 1509.1(A)(2). The court noted that, for families-in-need-of-services proceedings, when a child is adjudged guilty of direct or constructive contempt for repeated disobedience of the court’s judgment of disposition, the court may commit the child to a secure detention facility for not more than seven days, citing La. Ch. Code art. 1509.1(C)(2). Against that framework, the court found merit in the child’s claim that the juvenile court erred by revoking probation and making the original six-month sentence executory, citing State ex rel. T.H., 2010-2215 (La. 10/6/10), 45 So.3d 611 (per curiam).
The court reversed the probation revocation, vacated the sentence, and ordered the juvenile court to immediately release the child from the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice, provided he was not being held on unrelated charges. The juvenile court was further ordered to provide the appellate court with a copy of the Order for Release by or before November 12, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile probation-revocation motion must be accompanied by a supporting affidavit specifying the claimed violations, and the child must receive a copy of both, under La. Ch. Code art. 913(A).
- The State’s concession that Article 913 notice was not given supported reversal of the revocation.
- Where the child received notice of a contempt rule to show cause in a matter arising from a delinquency proceeding, La. Ch. Code art. 1509.1(A)(2) governs.
- For contempt in families-in-need-of-services proceedings, secure detention is capped at not more than seven days under La. Ch. Code art. 1509.1(C)(2).
- The court ordered immediate release from Office of Juvenile Justice custody, subject to any unrelated charges, and required the juvenile court to file the release order with the appellate court by November 12, 2026.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that juvenile probation revocations in Louisiana must comply with the specific motion-and-affidavit notice procedure of Article 913, and that a contempt rule to show cause is not a substitute that permits imposition of a previously suspended six-month commitment. Practitioners should identify which statutory track — delinquency probation revocation or contempt under Article 1509.1 — the proceeding actually follows, because the available sanction differs materially, with secure detention for qualifying contempt limited to seven days.
The ruling is a short writ disposition rather than a full merits opinion, so its reasoning is confined to the statutory notice defect and the governing-contempt framework identified by the panel. It nonetheless provides a clear procedural checkpoint for juvenile defenders and prosecutors in the First Circuit: absent Article 913 notice, a revocation and execution of the underlying sentence will be reversed on supervisory review.