Parole board grants one parole, orders several revocations and work‑release outcomes at March 25 hearings

The Committee on Parole heard revocation and parole cases from multiple facilities on March 25, 2025, and issued a mix of revocations, alternatives to revocation and a grant of parole with conditions.

The board granted parole to Larry Julian contingent on completion of a 100‑hour prerelease program and ordered no contact with a person identified in the record. In separate hearings the board approved 6‑month work‑release placements in lieu of revocation for two men who had missed or violated reporting conditions and ordered other conditions, and it revoked parole for three people after finding violations of parole conditions. One hearing was continued to obtain a mental‑health evaluation before the board will decide.

Why it matters: The board’s decisions affect whether people remain in custody or return to the community under supervision, and they set conditions — such as no‑contact orders and reporting schedules — that shape supervision and family arrangements.

Votes at a glance

- Ronnie Smith — Decision: in lieu of revocation, 6 months work release; conditions include compliance with the reentry plan submitted by the public defender’s team, no contact with the identified partner, and monthly check‑ins with parole/probation as directed. Background: Smith faced an allegation of domestic abuse battery that was dismissed Jan. 28, 2025, and admitted being behind $3,598 in supervision fees. Rebecca Goldstein, a public defender, and Brian Larson, a social worker, presented a detailed reentry plan and letters of support. The board split in preliminary statements but ultimately approved the work‑release alternative and imposed the no‑contact condition.

- (Lafourche Parish) Mister Major — Decision: in lieu of revocation, 6 months work release; ordered to pay $832.50 (cost of extradition). Background: Major admitted to leaving the state without permission and had an arrearage of $2,268 in supervision fees; a Texas arrest led to extradition. Agent McGrew and local deputies participated in the hearing.

- Sylvester/Epperson (Jefferson Parish) — Decision: parole revoked. Background: Arrested Nov. 27, 2024, on allegations including unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, domestic abuse and child endangerment; the board cited photos and alleged strangulation as public‑safety concerns.

- Jack Collins (Orleans) — Decision: parole revoked. Background: Allegations that Collins left his recorded residence and traveled to Mississippi without proper interstate‑compact approval; the board voted 2–1 to revoke but noted Collins may have an opportunity to work on interstate compact paperwork while in custody.

- Larry Julian — Decision: parole granted contingent on completing prerelease and complying with conditions. Conditions as announced by the board: completion of the required prerelease program (100 hours), weekly reporting to parole officer for the first 60 days, then reporting as ordered (the board also reiterated no contact with Joyce Julian). The board noted Julian’s trustee status since his return and required the prerelease completion before final release.

- Paul Nolan — Decision: continued for mental‑health evaluation. Background: Board members said Nolan needs a new evaluation and stabilization on medication; the panel directed a transfer for an evaluation (Hunt) and will reschedule the hearing after the clinical assessment.

What the board said and what supporters told the panel

Rebecca Goldstein, a public defender with the Public Defender’s Office in New Orleans, urged the board to weigh Smith’s years in custody, family circumstances and a detailed reentry plan, saying the plan would help him “gain the tools needed to understand the dynamics of healthy relationships” and asking the board to use discretion to show him mercy.

Brian Larson, a social worker with the Public Defender’s Office, described the reentry plan and told the panel, “I feel comfortable stating that, Mr. Smith did not commit any physical abuse by no means,” and described housing and program placements he had arranged.

Board member Renata (identified in the record as Miss Renata) said she favored an alternative to revocation in Smith’s case: “My vote today would be in lieu of revocation to give you an opportunity for a work release program for 6 months, add the special condition then that you comply with the transition plan… And then never no contact with Miss Patton.”

For other cases the panel cited supervision failures and public‑safety concerns. In the Jefferson Parish case the panel said evidence of possible strangulation in front of a child supported revocation.

Implementation details and conditions

- Work‑release placements: the board approved two 6‑month work‑release outcomes (Ronnie Smith; Mister Major) in lieu of revocation, conditioned on compliance with reentry plans and other special conditions. For Major the board additionally ordered payment of $832.50 for extradition costs.

- No‑contact orders: the board imposed explicit no‑contact directives in at least two decisions, specifying the person by name in the record (for Ronnie Smith and for Larry Julian regarding Joyce Julian).

- Reporting schedules: the board required specific reporting frequencies in several cases (for example, weekly reporting initially for Larry Julian and monthly check‑ins in one alternate disposition).

Cases continued or deferred

- Paul Nolan: the board continued the hearing to obtain a mental‑health evaluation and medication stabilization; members said the transfer to an evaluation facility (Hunt) is necessary before a final decision.

Meeting context and crowding of issues

The panel heard multiple, back‑to‑back hearings spanning several facilities (Orleans, Lafourche, Jefferson, Orleans Parish Jail, Richland and others), with a mix of in‑person and remote participants: defense counsel, social workers, supervising agents, correctional deputies and family members spoke for respondents. Several hearings involved detailed case packets and statements from supporters outlining employment, housing and family plans.

Ending

The panel recorded its votes and issued written orders or continuances for each case. Several people who were granted an alternative to revocation were told explicitly this was “the last and only opportunity,” per board members’ remarks, and that further violations would lead to revocation and return to custody.

(See the actions list below for case‑by‑case outcomes and conditions.)