Summary
A state parole board denied parole for James Hughes after hearing victim testimony and noting law-enforcement opposition and an elevated static risk score; board recommended moving him to a facility offering required offender classes.
The State Parole Board on a three-member panel denied parole for James Hughes, 763404, following a hearing in which the victim's mother told the board she opposed his release. Acting Chair Pete Freeman, joined by panel members Tillis and Barra, voted to deny parole.
The board heard from Hughes, who described the offense as an accident and said he was remorseful. Catherine Francois, identified in the hearing as the victim's mother, spoke at the board's headquarters and opposed Hughes's release, saying the victim was 12 at the time, remains shy and has not recovered from the incident. "I do not wish for him to be released," Francois said.
The panel also reviewed Hughes's institutional record; Freeman noted Hughes is a first-felony offender with a 23-year sentence and a full-term date in 2041, that he has a significant criminal history and strong law-enforcement opposition. Freeman said the board found Hughes scored a 3 on the Static-99 (a sex-offender risk tool) and that he had served about seven years of his 23-year sentence. The board voted unanimously to deny parole and recorded a recommendation that Hughes be transferred to a facility that offers the required sex-offender classes so he may reapply after completing treatment.
Discussion versus decision: board members asked Hughes about prior classes and treatment; Hughes said he had taken classes while at a different facility but said Riverview offered none. Freeman and the panel made clear denial was a formal action; Freeman recorded the denial and recommended placement where Hughes could undertake required programming. No change in sentencing or release conditions resulted from the hearing.
The board's formal action: parole denied; panel asked corrections staff to attempt a transfer to a program that provides offender treatment classes so Hughes can reapply after completing them.
Outgoing notes: The board's denial was based on the combination of victim opposition, law-enforcement opposition, Hughes's criminal history and the panel's assessment that he needs treatment classes not currently available where he is housed. The board did not set a new review date at the hearing.
