Governor Jeff Landry has moved at a dizzying legislative pace since being elected governor and one very significant change made to Louisiana law is what is referred to as “Truth in Sentencing.”
What is Truth in Sentencing?
The long and short of it is that for years Judges, District Attorneys and Defense Attorneys have essentially had to estimate the actual amount of time a convicted individual would be incarcerated. Louisiana was said to have a “high rate of indeterminacy” in sentencing and the stated purpose of the new law is to simplify time computation by the Louisiana Department of Corrections.
Currently, the rule of thumb was that a conviction or plea that did not involve a Crime of Violence under Louisiana law would have an inmate serve approximately 1/3rd of their given sentence. So, for example, with a nonviolent crime like Simple Burglary, the accused could either plead to or be convicted of and sentenced to, hypothetically, 6 years in prison. The individual would serve approximately 1/3rd of the 6 years, or two years. On the other hand, if an individual pled to or was convicted of a crime of violence, they would serve approximately 2/3rds of the 6 year sentence, or 4 years.
That has now all changed.
In the 2024 Special Session of the Louisiana Legislature, the relevant statute, LA. R.S. 15:571.3, was amended and re-enacted. The relevant part of the statute is referred to as Diminution of Sentence for good time served. The new law changed the amount of good time credit (i.e. reduction) that can be earned to a maximum of 15% for all offenses except when the individual is what is known as an Habitual Offender or the crime involves a sex offense. (which are not allowed to earn any good time). Unlike before, the new law does not differentiate between violent and nonviolent offenses. Again, the declared purpose of this change is to provide truth, or greater accuracy, in sentencing.
So, what is the crux of the new law?
Well, these changes only apply to offenses that were committed on or after August 1, 2024, and the Good Time Rates after that date will be 85% for all offenses except, again, sex offenses and habitual offenders who will not be eligible for any good time served. Sex and habitual offenders will earn credit for any time served prior to their conviction but will not earn any additional good time credit. One caveat is that offenders may earn up to 12 months of additional credit for the completion of treatment and rehabilitation programming as provided for in LA. R.S. 15:828. Finally, the new law clarifies that when an offender has served 85% of their sentence they will be released on Unsupervised Parole for the remainder of their sentence.
Let me also share two other categories of offense that have been amended. The first is Drug Court Screening and Eligibility, with Act 572 providing that a defendant who meets the eligibility and suitability criteria can be offered by the court an opportunity to participate in the program and undergo treatment. Second, Act 648 provides that in a felony case, the court shall not/may not terminate probation early, or as “unsatisfactory,” and release the defendant if the conviction was for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, vehicular homicide, or First Degree vehicular negligent injuring.
One other issue I am asked about frequently. Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. The new law mandates that a consecutive (it’s usually concurrent) sentence be imposed if a person convicted was on probation or parole at the time of the new offense.
That’s quite a change!
I believe the goal of ensuring truth in sentencing is good public policy. I think a defendant, as a matter of due process of law, must be informed of what time they will actually serve for their offense. I also feel it is important, as a matter of both the legal process and judicial efficiency, that judges, DAs, and criminal defense attorneys know exactly what a sentence entails in order to know how to proceed in a case whether it be a plea or a trial.
I will be curious to see how these changes impact crime and incarceration in Louisiana. Whether additional statutory tweaks will be needed remains to be seen but the effort to increase both the constitutionally required ‘fair warning’ and notice of what is prohibited under law, resulting in what penalty, is laudable.
Shreveport attorney, Royal Alexander, worked in D.C. in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly 8 years for two different Members of Congress from Louisiana.