Committee on Parole denies multiple parole requests and revokes three paroles at March 20 hearings

The Committee on Parole met at the Louisiana Department of Corrections headquarters in Baton Rouge on March 20 and denied a string of parole requests and revoked parole in three cases after hearings held at multiple facilities, the committee said.

The action matters because the board cited incomplete programming, active law‑enforcement or victim opposition and the seriousness of the underlying offenses in refusing early release — decisions that will keep several people in custody or, in one case, ensure an upcoming transfer to federal immigration authorities if and when a sentence is completed.

The panel led each hearing with a brief applicant statement, staff and family testimony, and presentations by prosecutors or victim advocates. The board repeatedly told applicants it wanted to see completion of targeted programs — notably sex‑offender or substance‑abuse treatment and victim‑impact classes — before approving release. In cases with active victim or law‑enforcement opposition, the board emphasized the gravity of the original offense.

Taken together, the board denied parole for: Adam Cambry (Raymond Laborde Correctional Center); a person identified as Ramirez (DLC 574265); Eugene Oratius (Hunt Correctional Center); Genaro (Gennaro) Gonzales (Hunt); and Gus Green (Hunt). The board revoked parole for Jonathan Parker, Steve Thomas and Clifford Owens. Each case summary below reflects the board’s stated reasons and the formal vote recorded in the hearing.

Votes at a glance

- Adam Cambry (DLC 00724422) — denied (board said Cambry must complete substance‑abuse and anger‑management classes before reconsideration). Warden reported no disciplinary writeups at the facility and recommended completion of programming; Cambry said he was enrolled in Living in Balance, Free Release and anger management and expected release by roughly April 20–28, 2025 regardless of today’s action. The board’s recorded position was to deny pending completion of the listed classes.

- Ramirez (DLC 574265) — denied. The assistant district attorney presented the case in opposition, noting that the applicant pleaded guilty to forcible rape of a child and had a prior disciplinary history including multiple disciplinary reports between 2011 and 2020; the DA and the warden both recommended completion of sex‑offender programs and victim‑impact classes before any release. The board voted to deny.

- Eugene Oratius (Hunt Correctional Center) — denied. Medical staff and the applicant’s brother explained that a 2009 electrocution left the applicant with serious cognitive and speech impairments; the Caddo Parish district attorney’s office and a victim advocate opposed release, citing the severity and lasting physical effects of the victim’s injuries. The board said the serious nature of the underlying crime and the applicant’s minimal communication to the panel supported denial.

- Genaro (Gennaro) Gonzales (Hunt) — denied. A victim who testified described severe injuries and ongoing fear; law‑enforcement opposition and the victim’s testimony prompted the board to deny parole.

- Gus Green (Hunt) — denied. Green is serving a multi‑count habitual‑offender sentence that included a sexual offense while on a work detail; board members cited the violent nature of that offense, that Green had served about 63% of his term, and incomplete sex‑offender programming as reasons to deny.

- Jonathan Parker — parole revoked. Parker appeared on a revocation questionnaire and pleaded guilty at the hearing to multiple technical violations alleged by parole supervision, including failure to participate in required sex‑offender treatment and possession or access to prohibited material. The panel voted to revoke parole.

- Steve Thomas — parole revoked. Thomas pleaded guilty at the hearing to a set of alleged violations including failing to report and failing to maintain a verifiable address; the board found all charged violations proved and revoked parole.

- Clifford Owens — parole revoked. Owens admitted a 2024 California conviction for threatening behavior and acknowledged he had not completed designated post‑release requirements such as couples counseling and community service; the board voted to revoke.

What board members and others said

In several hearings the board emphasized programming completion. On Adam Cambry’s case the board noted that the Warden had recommended Cambry “complete these classes prior to his release” and that Cambry “had no write ups” at the facility. Cambry told the board, “I plan on staying away from all the people that I was with before and focusing on work, my family,” and described enrollment in substance‑abuse and anger‑management classes.

When prosecutors and victim advocates opposed release, the board frequently cited that opposition in its reasoning. In the Ramirez hearing the assistant district attorney told the board, “We are strongly opposed to Mister Ramirez’s request for parole,” and cited the victim impact, a prior disciplinary record, and absence of verified completion of offender‑specific classes. In the Gonzales hearing a victim described severe physical and emotional injury and said, “I will never forget” the assault; the board cited victim opposition and law‑enforcement concerns in voting to deny.

For revocations, board members pointed to documentary and supervisory records. In the Parker matter the board read alleged violations aloud and accepted the applicant’s guilty pleas on the record; the panel concluded parole should be revoked. Similarly, in Thomas’s case the board found multiple parole conditions violated and revoked parole.

Procedural notes and next steps

- Several applicants were told they would be reconsidered only after documented completion of specific programs (for example, sex‑offender treatment or victim‑impact classes) or after they complete the remaining term of their sentence.

- The board noted an ICE detainer on one applicant; the chair explained that, following completion of state obligations, federal immigration authorities would determine custody transfer.

- Where applicants had family or interpreters present, the board accepted live testimony from relatives and victim advocates and allowed staff to confirm institutional records.

Speakers (from the transcript)

The report draws on testimony and statements from the following participants as identified in the hearing record: Chair, Committee on Parole (presiding officer); Chuck Tillis (Parole Board member); Danny Barra (Parole Board member); Ward (Warden/representative, Raymond Laborde Correctional Center); Raven Heath (classification staff); Melissa Joshua (records staff); Randall Meyer (Assistant District Attorney, Jefferson Parish); Annette Camry (family member); Eugene Oratius (applicant); Dr. John Prejean (medical director, Hunt Correctional Center); Leo Oratius (family member); Leona Fitzgerald (Caddo Parish DA’s office/victim advocate); Camille Tarver (victim who testified in the Gonzales matter); Maggie (Spanish interpreter); Genaro/Gennaro Gonzales (applicant); Gus Green (applicant); Jonathan Parker (applicant, revocation hearing); Shawanda Dunbar and other family members (witnesses); Steve Thomas (applicant, revocation hearing); Maurice Hall (attorney); Clifford Owens (applicant). If a transcript entry did not clearly provide a formal role/title, the role was summarized (for example “Warden” or “classification staff”) rather than invented.

Authorities referenced in hearings

- Parole supervision and revocation rules cited in hearings (examples in the transcript: “LA number 13,” “Texas rule number 8” and numbered parole‑condition items appearing on revocation questionnaires). These were referenced during revocation proceedings; the transcript does not provide full statutory citations.

- ICE detainer (federal immigration hold) mentioned in at least one hearing.

Clarifying details extracted from the hearings

- Adam Cambry reported an anticipated release in late April 2025 (board noted he would in any event be released in roughly a month); the board nevertheless required completion of substance‑use/anger‑management programming before favorable action.

- Ramirez’s criminal history in the transcript included a youth offense (charged at age 19) that resulted in a lengthy sentence; the DA said the institutional file showed earlier disciplinary reports between 2011 and 2020.

- Eugene Oratius: record in the hearing of a massive electrocution in 2009 that caused long‑term cognitive and speech impairment; medical staff confirmed limited speech and dysphagia but said he can perform many activities of daily living.

Community relevance and impact

- Geographic scope: Baton Rouge headquarters; hearings were held at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center and Hunt Correctional Center; cases involved Jefferson Parish, Caddo Parish and other local jurisdictions.

- Impact groups: victims of sexual and violent crimes, families of applicants, corrections staff and community supervision offices.

Meeting context

- Engagement level: multiple contested hearings with institutional staff, family members and prosecutor or victim statements appearing in several matters; several hearings included executive‑session consultation before the vote.

- Implementation risk: many outcomes hinge on applicants completing recommended programming or on external decisions (for example, ICE custody determinations) before any change of status.

Provenance (selected evidence spans from the transcript)

- Adam Cambry topicintro: {"block_id":"block-1186.61","local_start":0,"local_end":110,"evidence_excerpt":"Okay. Well, we thank you for hosting us today. We're gonna be with you for, I think just 2 hearings, parole hearings, and then we'll be through our first parole hearing that we're gonna have is mister Adam Cambry. Are you mister Adam Cambry?"}

- Adam Cambry topfinish: {"block_id":"block-1771.6","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"I agree with the warden there, and my vote is gonna be to the to deny, pending that you complete these classes. Yes."}

- Ramirez topicintro: {"block_id":"block-2145.045","local_start":0,"local_end":110,"evidence_excerpt":"We're still at Raymond Laborde. And, I got the same folks who was in the room. I assume it's when we had and, Ward, thank you for hosting us. Mister Ramirez, do you know your DLC number?"}

- Ramirez topfinish: {"block_id":"block-2911.825","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"Okay. And another vote to deny. I concur. And another vote to deny. I apologize for getting that messed up, but your parole request is denied at this particular time."}

- Oratius (Eugene) topicintro: {"block_id":"block-3300.2952","local_start":0,"local_end":80,"evidence_excerpt":"Okay. Good morning, sir. Okay. How are you doing today? Fantastic, sir. How are you? I'm doing good. Doing good. Alright. Let's see. We're now at Hunt Correctional Center."}

- Oratius topfinish: {"block_id":"block-4027.87","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"I don't have any questions either. After having heard all the testimony and and due to the serious, serious nature of the crime... my vote is to deny."}

- Gonzales topicintro: {"block_id":"block-4361.02","local_start":0,"local_end":80,"evidence_excerpt":"Good morning. Is your name Gennaro Gonzales? Yes. Okay. Am I saying that word right?"}

- Gonzales topfinish: {"block_id":"block-5794.8","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"K. I'll make this easy. Deny. Your parole today has been denied. That's the end of the hearing 10:21."}

- Gus Green topicintro: {"block_id":"block-6167.355","local_start":0,"local_end":90,"evidence_excerpt":"Good morning, mister Green. The time is 10:27. I assume you are mister Green, Gus Green? Yes, sir. What is your DOC number?"}

- Gus Green topfinish: {"block_id":"block-6633.165","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"I concur with mister Barrack. The time is 10:35, and I'm sorry to tell you, but your parole request has been denied. End of the hearing."}

- Jonathan Parker (revocation) topicintro: {"block_id":"block-7054.8696","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"Good morning. It's 10:42 in the morning... we're at headquarters in Baton Rouge... we're gonna be handling your case today. And you are mister Jonathan Parker, and we're talking to you locally at Hunt Correctional..."}

- Jonathan Parker topfinish: {"block_id":"block-7987.0547","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"My vote today is gonna be to deny, and I think you should get some training while you're still there... To revoke."}

- Steve Thomas topicintro: {"block_id":"block-8430.079","local_start":0,"local_end":80,"evidence_excerpt":"Steve Thomas? Is that you?... What is your DOC number?"}

- Steve Thomas topfinish: {"block_id":"block-9389.575","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"So, anyway, good luck next time, and, your parole this morning has been revoked. It's 11:20 in the morning."}

- Clifford Owens topicintro: {"block_id":"block-10461.1045","local_start":0,"local_end":80,"evidence_excerpt":"Okay. Good morning. Mister Clifford Owens, is that you?... And what is your POC number?"}

- Clifford Owens topfinish: {"block_id":"block-11108.42","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"So, mister Owens, I'm sorry to say, but your parole has been revoked today. The time has left... 11:49."}

Salience

- overall:0.62,"overall_justification":"Multiple parole denials and revocations in one session affect several individuals, victims and community supervision outcomes; several cases involved violent or sexual offenses and victim or prosecutor opposition.","impact_scope":"local","impact_scope_justification":"Decisions concern state custody and local victims in multiple parishes (Jefferson, Caddo, Orleans/New Orleans references).","attention_level":"medium","attention_level_justification":"Likely of local news and public‑safety interest; contains high‑sensitivity victim testimony.","novelty":0.30,"novelty_justification":"Standard regular parole docket, not a new policy change.","timeliness_urgency":0.55,"timeliness_urgency_justification":"Immediate effect on the applicants' custody status and on anticipated release plans.","legal_significance":0.48,"legal_significance_justification":"Individual case‑level custody decisions; some mention of ICE detainer and revocations that affect supervision terms.","budgetary_significance":0.05,"budgetary_significance_justification":"No direct budgetary decisions recorded.","public_safety_risk":0.68,"public_safety_risk_justification":"Several denials cite violent or sexual offenses and victim safety concerns.","affected_population_estimate":50,"affected_population_estimate_justification":"Immediate effect on a set of eight individuals and their families; indirect effect on victims and supervision caseloads.","affected_population_confidence":0.6}