Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parole revoked for Charmaine Thrasher after guilty pleas on protective-order and drug violations
Summary
The Committee on Parole revoked Charmaine Thrasher’s parole after she admitted to multiple violations, including a guilty plea to a protective-order violation and a positive THC test; the board asked staff to check the protective order’s status and urged treatment options.
The Committee on Parole revoked the parole of Charmaine Thrasher (DLC 556383) following a revocation hearing in which the panel found multiple violations, including a guilty plea to a violation of a protective order and a positive drug screen for THC.
The board said the decision matters because Thrasher admitted crimes that led to arrest and had outstanding supervision arrears; the panel also flagged a court-issued protective order that could keep Thrasher in violation if contact continued.
At the start of the hearing, acting Chair Pete Freeman confirmed Thrasher’s identity and that she declined appointed counsel. Mayola Williams, identified in the record as Thrasher’s former partner, told the panel, “I was okay with him being released,” and said the incident had occurred years earlier and she was “fine with him now.”
Board members read a list of violations into the record and asked Thrasher to plead. The record shows the following violations and Thrasher’s responses: failure to report to a parole officer on Nov. 14, 2024 (pleaded not guilty); failure to allow an agent to visit on Nov. 13, 2024 (not guilty); a positive THC test on Nov. 18, 2024 (pleaded guilty); criminal activity leading to arrest on Nov. 18–19, 2024 and a subsequent charge of violation of a protective order with reference TAN 2402606 (pleaded guilty and received credit for time served); and unpaid supervision fees with a current arrears balance of $378 (pleaded guilty). Thrasher confirmed the underlying conviction that placed her on parole was for domestic-abuse battery.
During discussion the board noted that the victim had told them she no longer feared Thrasher, but panel members stressed the legal risk created by an active protective order. Acting Chair Freeman told Thrasher the board would “check about that protective order, how long that thing is in effect” and urged her to have the order addressed through the court. A panel member recommended that Thrasher participate in a domestic-violence program while incarcerated; another suggested checking whether domestic-violence rather than an anger-management program would be most appropriate.
The panel voted to revoke Thrasher’s parole. The board recorded concurrence among voting members and ordered that staff verify the protective order’s status so Thrasher would know the conditions that would apply if released.
