STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF S.D.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF S.D. * NO. 2002-CA-0672 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* APPEAL FROM JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 00-147-04-QF, SECTION “F” Honorable Mark Doherty, Judge ****** Judge Steven R. Plotkin ****** (Court composed of Judge Steven R. Plotkin, Judge Miriam G. Waltzer, Judge Patricia Rivet Murray) Revettea D. Woods Department of Public Safety and Corrections Office of Youth Development 504 Mayflower Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT David J. Utter Sarah L. Ottinger Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70113 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE AFFIRMED. The issue in this appeal is whether the juvenile judge was correct in determining that the conditions of S.D.’s confinement at the juvenile facility were unconstitutional. On September 21, 2000, S.D. pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, unauthorized use of a moveable, resisting an officer and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. The court sentenced S.D. to one year for possession of crack cocaine, one year for unauthorized use of a movable, and six months each for resisting an officer and reckless operation of a vehicle. These sentences were to be run consecutively, with S.D. getting credit for time served. The DOC initially placed S.D. at the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth and later moved him to its facility in Tallulah, LA. On May 18, 2001, while on his way to class, S.D. became involved in an altercation with the correctional guard. As a result he received a fractured jaw. For the facts and reasons described in the excellent reasons for judgment issued by the trial court, which is attached to this opinion, we accept his opinion in toto. Conclusion The trial court did not err in finding that S.D.’s conditions of confinement were unconstitutional. For the foregoing reasons stated the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.