The State Parole Board revoked parole for Darren Neely, 515864, after a revocation hearing in which the panel concluded probable cause existed for new criminal conduct. Panel members voted to revoke following review of a police report describing domestic abuse allegations and witness statements.

Neely's counsel, Tessa Silverman, told the board that charges arising from an April 3, 2025 arrest were later refused by the New Orleans district attorney on May 30, 2025, and that the defense had concerns about the evidence. Silverman said she viewed body-worn-camera footage and a police report and described inconsistencies between the complainant's later statements and initial allegations; she told the board the complainant had written a letter expressing regret and that the available evidence did not clearly show Neely caused the complainant's injuries.

Brian Lawrence, a social worker with the Orleans Public Defender's office who presented a case plan, described treatment referrals and ongoing case management supports for Neely and urged the board to consider supervised options. Latasha Trahan, who identified herself as Neely's aunt, told the panel she had a place Neely could live and offered family support.

The chair read the alleged violation into the record: Neely was arrested for domestic abuse battery involving strangulation and domestic abuse battery involving a child; the district attorney later refused the charges. Neely pleaded and answered questions. After discussion, the panel concluded the alleged conduct constituted a violation of parole conditions and voted to revoke. Panel member Tillis explicitly said he would revoke because of rule violation number four, and other members concurred.

Decision: parole revoked. The panel's vote reflected the board's view that probable cause and the seriousness of the allegations justified revocation despite the DA's later refusal; the record notes the defense's argument about evidentiary gaps and the complainant's letter.

Ending: Neely's parole was revoked and the board recorded the revocation on the administrative record; the decision noted referrals and supports described by the defense but did not adopt them as grounds to avoid revocation.