The Louisiana Court of Appeal recently upheld the consecutive sentences of Devin R. Ned, who was convicted of attempted manslaughter and aggravated flight from an officer. The court's decision, rendered on July 15, 2026, comes after a previous appeal where Ned's convictions were affirmed but his sentences were vacated for improper justification. This ruling affects Ned, who will serve a total of 20 years in prison, and highlights the court's stance on public safety in relation to violent offenses.
The case, officially documented as State of Louisiana v. Devin R. Ned (Docket No. 56,965-KA), stems from an incident on August 26, 2021, where Ned fled from police after being reported for suspicious behavior. His actions during the police chase led to serious charges, including attempted first-degree murder of a police officer. Initially convicted by a jury, Ned received a sentence of 15 years for attempted manslaughter and 5 years for aggravated flight, to be served consecutively.
Ned's legal troubles began when he was reported to police for pacing and lurking in a yard. Upon police arrival, he fled in his vehicle, leading officers on a dangerous high-speed chase. The situation escalated when Ned struck Officer Anthony Visciotti with his car, causing the officer to fire back in self-defense. Despite the serious nature of the incident, Ned's initial appeal resulted in an affirmation of his convictions but a vacating of his sentences due to the trial court's failure to adequately justify the consecutive nature of his sentences.
After the court's remand, the trial court resentenced Ned to the same terms of 15 years for attempted manslaughter and 5 years for aggravated flight, emphasizing the dangerousness of his actions and his criminal history. The trial court noted that Ned had previously violated protective orders and committed battery against a dating partner, which contributed to its decision to impose consecutive sentences. The court stated, "The defendant has demonstrated he is a danger to the public and the public is safer with him off the streets."
Ned's appeal focused on the argument that his sentences were excessive and that the trial court did not provide sufficient justification for the consecutive nature of the sentences. He contended that the police were not investigating him for a serious offense at the time of their initial contact and that he posed no unusual risk to public safety. However, the State argued that the trial court's reasoning was adequate and that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The court ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. It noted that Ned's actions during the chase and his previous criminal history justified the sentences. The court emphasized that the aggregate sentence of 20 years, while at the maximum for attempted manslaughter, did not shock the sense of justice given the severity of his actions.
This ruling has significant implications for how courts may handle cases involving violent offenses and the justification required for consecutive sentences. It reinforces the idea that public safety considerations play a critical role in sentencing decisions, particularly in cases where a defendant has a history of violent behavior. The court's affirmation of Ned's sentences serves as a reminder of the legal system's commitment to protecting the public from individuals deemed dangerous.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether Ned will pursue further appeals. His current options for legal recourse may be limited, given the court's clear articulation of reasons for the consecutive sentences. As it stands, the Louisiana Court of Appeal's decision sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the importance of public safety in sentencing decisions.