Background
On August 26, 2021, police in Shreveport received a report of Devin R. Ned pacing and lurking in someone’s yard. When officers arrived, Ned fled in a vehicle, leading to a high-speed chase through a residential area. The chase ended at a dead-end street where Officer Anthony Visciotti exited his vehicle with drawn weapon. Ned reversed his car and struck Officer Visciotti, sending him over the vehicle’s hood. Though the officer was not seriously injured, he fired at Ned’s vehicle, striking Ned in the shoulder.
Ned was charged with attempted first-degree murder of a police officer and aggravated flight from law enforcement. A jury convicted him of the responsive verdict of attempted manslaughter and aggravated flight from an officer. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years at hard labor for attempted manslaughter and 5 years for aggravated flight, to be served consecutively—a total of 20 years imprisonment.
On Ned’s initial appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, finding the trial court had not adequately articulated reasons for imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. On remand, the trial court reimposed identical sentences with specific justifications.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed Ned’s consecutive sentences, holding that the trial court adequately articulated particular justification for the consecutive nature of the sentences. The court found the trial court’s stated reasons—Ned’s criminal history (protective order violations and battery of a dating partner), the gravity and dangerousness of the offenses, Ned’s reckless disregard for public and officer safety, the purposeful striking of Officer Visciotti, and Ned’s demonstrated danger to the public—satisfied the statutory requirements under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 883.
The court noted that Ned’s individual sentences of 15 and 5 years had already been determined not excessive in the prior appeal. The aggregate 20-year sentence equals the maximum statutory sentence for attempted manslaughter alone and represents only 80% of the combined statutory maximum exposure of 25 years for both crimes. The court found the consecutive sentences did not shock the sense of justice and therefore did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Consecutive sentences arising from a single course of conduct do not automatically require separate justification beyond articulated reasons for the consecutive nature of the sentences.
- Louisiana trial courts must articulate specific factors considered in imposing consecutive sentences, including criminal history, offense dangerousness, risk to the public, and rehabilitation potential.
- Appellate courts review consecutive sentence decisions for abuse of discretion, not whether an alternative sentence might have been more appropriate.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements for consecutive sentencing in Louisiana. It demonstrates that when a trial court provides explicit articulation of factors supporting consecutive sentences on remand, appellate courts will uphold those sentences if adequate factual support exists in the record. The opinion underscores that consecutive sentences are within judicial discretion when arising from a single criminal episode and should not be second-guessed merely because the aggregate term is substantial.
For practitioners, the decision reinforces the importance of trial court findings on the record. A trial court that articulates reasons for consecutive sentences—even if identical to those expressed at initial sentencing—provides an adequate basis for appellate affirmance. The ruling also clarifies that an aggregate sentence within the combined statutory maximum and below the maximum for a single crime will generally survive excessiveness review when factors supporting dangerousness and public safety are established.