Tyshequa Boykins on Behalf of Kylin Boykins v. Stevie Holloway
This text of Tyshequa Boykins on Behalf of Kylin Boykins v. Stevie Holloway (Tyshequa Boykins on Behalf of Kylin Boykins v. Stevie Holloway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judgment rendered December 3, 2025 Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 56,543-CA No. 56,544-CA No. 56,545-CA No. 56,546-CA No. 56,547-CA No. 56,548-CA (Consolidated cases)
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
No. 56,545-CA
TYSHEQUA BOYKINS ON BEHALF Plaintiff-Appellee OF KYLIN BOYKINS
versus
STEVIE HOLLOWAY Defendant-Appellant
Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 85,755
Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Chief Judge
SMITHERMAN, HILL & BRICE, L.C. Counsel for Appellant By: F. Weber Hill
TYSHEQUA BOYKINS In Proper Person
Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ.
STEPHENS, J., concurs in the result. MARCOTTE, J.
These consolidated civil appeals arise out the 42nd Judicial District
Court, Parish of DeSoto, the Honorable Amy Burford McCartney and the
Honorable Nicholas E. Gaspar presiding. Defendant Steve Holloway
(“Holloway, Sr.”) appeals the trial court’s granting of three protective orders
against him. Defendant Stevie Holloway (“Stevie”) also appeals the trial
court’s granting of three protective orders against him. For the following
reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. A
separate opinion is issued for each protective order. This memorandum
opinion is issued in compliance with U.R.C.A. 2-16.1(B).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 3, 2025, Tyshequa Boykins (“Tyshequa”) filed on behalf
of her son, Kylin Boykins (“Boykins”) (DOB: 6-13-08), two petitions for
protective orders against Holloway, Sr. and Stevie (together “the
Holloways”). She alleged that on January 1, 2025, while at Blink’s Quick
Stop Store/Whataburger in Joaquin, Texas, Holloway, Sr. instructed Stevie
to attack Boykins believing him to be his brother, Ju’Kadynn Carter.
Tyshequa stated that Holloway, Sr. continued to chase Boykins with a gun to
his vehicle and towards his residence. She said that the incident resulted in
Boykins having to go to the hospital with a bruised eye and cut on his foot.
She said Stevie used a bat to charge at Boykins. She also alleged verbal
abuse by making racial comments.
On January 16, 2025, Tyshequa filed two new petitions for protection
from stalking in favor of Boykins against the Holloways alleging the same facts. For a recitation of the facts and procedural history, see Ju’Kadynn
Carter v. Steve Holloway, 56,543 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/3/25).
On January 16, 2025, Judge McCartney granted a protective order in
favor of Boykins against Stevie. Stevie now appeals.
DISCUSSION
Stevie assigns the following errors:
(1) The trial court erred in failing to apply the correct definition of stalking in accordance with La. R.S. 14:40.2.
(2) The trial court erred in finding that Stevie represented a credible threat to the physical safety of a family member, household member, or dating partner.
(3) The trial court erred in prohibiting the possession of a firearm for the duration of the protective order by Stevie pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2136.3.
(4) The trial court erred in granting the protective order for a duration of two years.
For the reasons expressed in Ju’Kadynn Carter v. Steve Holloway,
supra, Stevie’s first assignment of error is without merit. The trial court was
correct in issuing a protective order in favor of Boykins against Stevie. That
part of the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. For the reasons articulated in
Ju’Kadynn Carter v. Steve Holloway, supra, Stevie’s remaining assignments
of error have merit. Stevie is not a family member, household member, or
dating partner of Boykins’. Therefore, the trial court should not have
prohibited him from possessing a firearm. That part of the trial court’s
ruling is reversed. The court also erred in granting the protective order for
two years. We remand the case to the trial court to reduce the fixed time for
the protective order to the maximum allowable period in accordance with
La. R.S. 46:2136(F).
2 CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the trial court’s granting of a protective
order against Stevie Holloway in favor of Kylin Boykins is affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded in accordance with this opinion. The costs of
the appeal are assessed to appellant.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tyshequa Boykins on Behalf of Kylin Boykins v. Stevie Holloway, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyshequa-boykins-on-behalf-of-kylin-boykins-v-stevie-holloway-lactapp-2025.