Judge Keeps 90-Day Sentence After Admitted Error

Supreme Court building with grand columns and steps — Photo: EQRoy / Shutterstock

A Louisiana judge kept a 90-day jail sentence for a former mayor convicted of sex crimes against a 16-year-old, even after admitting his sentencing comparison was based on plea deals, not trials.

Story Snapshot

A jury convicted former DeRidder mayor Misty Roberts of two felonies involving a 16-year-old boy.
The judge imposed 90 days in jail, a $5,000 fine, and suspended five-year prison terms.
Prosecutors sought more time, but the judge denied their motion to increase the sentence.
The judge acknowledged a mistake about his case comparisons but left the sentence in place.

What Happened In Court

A Beauregard Parish jury found former DeRidder mayor Misty Roberts guilty of carnal knowledge of a juvenile and indecent behavior with a juvenile tied to a 2024 party with her son’s 16-year-old friend. Judge Kent Savoie later sentenced Roberts to 90 days in parish jail, a $5,000 fine, and two five-year prison terms that he suspended. Prosecutors said the sentence was too light and moved to reconsider it, arguing Roberts should serve more time behind bars.

At the reconsideration hearing, Judge Savoie said he had looked at how similar parish cases were handled over the last 15 years when he chose the sentence. Local reporting states he also weighed testimony and the impact on the victim’s family at sentencing. Prosecutors pressed the court to impose a stiffer term, noting the convictions carried possible exposure well above 90 days, but the judge rejected the request and kept the sentence in place.

Why The 90 Days Sparked Outrage

The law allowed far more time for the two felony convictions, and earlier coverage said Roberts faced up to 17 years, depending on the counts and how a court stacked them. That gap fueled public anger after Roberts completed the 90 days and was released from custody, according to state records cited by national outlets. The Beauregard Parish District Attorney’s office argued the punishment failed to match the seriousness of sex offenses against a minor and formally asked the court to increase it.

During the hearing on the motion to reconsider, Judge Savoie admitted he was wrong about the list of cases he used to guide sentencing because it consisted of plea deals, not a mix of pleas and trials as he first suggested. A defense attorney later said the judge still believed the state’s push for a maximum term was “a little overboard” for a first-time offender and declined to change the sentence. The defense also argued the state was trying to punish Roberts for going to trial instead of taking a plea, which they called a “trial tax”.

The Open Questions The Record Does Not Answer

The public cannot see the full sentencing transcript, the written reasons, or the presentence report in the material surfaced here. The prosecution’s full motion papers are not available in the record provided, so the exact term they sought and the legal grounds are known only through news summaries. The documents also do not show whether the court formally treated Roberts’ public office as an aggravating factor, a point the state raised but the judge downplayed, according to local reporting.

These gaps matter because sentencing in child sex cases often turns on details that rarely make headlines. Charge selection, whether a case ends in a plea or a trial, and state sentencing ranges can swing outcomes widely. National research shows cases with mandatory minimums tend to receive longer sentences, while flexible ranges can produce large spreads in punishment, even for similar facts. Without the full court record, the public sees the 90 days but not the full calculus that produced it.

Why This Case Resonates Nationally

People across the political spectrum see a justice system that sometimes treats the powerful differently. This case touches that nerve. The judge relied on local case patterns, then acknowledged a mistake about those comparators, yet held firm on a sentence far below the possible range. Critics see a system that protects insiders; defenders see judicial discretion and a first-time offender assessment. Both views feed public cynicism about equal justice under law.

⚖️🚨 FORMER LOUISIANA MAYOR MISTY ROBERTS IS OUT OF JAIL AFTER 90 DAYS

Former DeRidder Mayor Misty Roberts was released September 7 after completing a 90-day jail sentence for her convictions of carnal knowledge of a juvenile and indecent behavior with a juvenile involving a… pic.twitter.com/AO1N3X4ORJ

— THE INFORMANT (@TheInformantUSA) September 8, 2026

For families worried about child safety, 90 days feels like a system failure. For those worried about unchecked judicial power, an admitted error that does not change the outcome sounds like the elites policing themselves. The facts here are clear: a jury conviction, a short jail term, a push for more time, and a denial even after an error was admitted. The lesson is also clear: when records stay sealed or thin, trust declines and anger grows.