Parole project support not enough: board denies parole for Carl England

The Committee on Parole on May 15, 2025, denied parole for Carl England despite presentations from a parole-project provider and family members who offered housing, employment assistance and ongoing support.

The decision hinged on England’s serious criminal history and the board’s view that he had not yet served an appropriate portion of an aggregate sentence for the serious offenses in his record. Supporters and program staff described strong reentry supports, trustee work in skilled nursing, and program completion; the board weighed those factors against the gravity of the underlying offenses.

England told the board he had been incarcerated about 20 years and described program participation, work as a trustee in skilled nursing and steady good conduct inside the facility. Kerry Myers, representing a parole project, said his organization had accepted England as a client and would provide long-term housing, employment help and social-worker support if parole were granted. Family members — a daughter and his wife — described his remorse, sustained positive conduct and family support. The daughter said England’s walk with faith and program engagement had improved his character in custody.

Board members pressed England about the facts of his prior offenses and his substance use. The record shows England denied cocaine use but acknowledged sniffing glue at times in his past. When asked about a historic aggravated-escape incident and other violent episodes in the record, his recollections sometimes differed from written reports; board members said those inconsistencies raised concerns.

Correctional staff confirmed England was a trusted worker in the skilled-nursing unit, had not had recent significant disciplinary incidents and had earned a large number of program credits. Parole project staff said England was 63 years old and had earned the maximum number of CTRP credits available.

Despite the mitigation offered, the panel concluded that England’s record and the seriousness of his convictions justified denying parole. Board members recommended continued program participation and noted support from the parole project and family for future planning.