Louisiana Committee on Parole revokes multiple paroles after May 22 hearings

The Committee on Parole met by video May 22, 2025, at its Baton Rouge headquarters with remote locations at several parish jails and voted to revoke parole in multiple cases, citing alleged absconding, new criminal arrests and convictions, and unpaid supervision fees.

Chairman Danny Barra opened the session and presided with Commissioners Carolyn Stapleton and Steve Prater. The panel reviewed preliminary-hearing packets, took statements from parolees and witnesses, and then voted on each file. "The committee on parole is called to order," Barra said at the start of the session; in multiple cases he later told individuals, "today your parole has been revoked."

Why it matters: revocation sends people back into custody and can affect public safety and correctional resources in multiple parishes. The panel repeatedly cited a mix of new arrests, failures to report or absconding from supervision, and chronic unpaid supervision fees as grounds for revocation.

Key cases and outcomes

- Demetra Peterson (DOC #511197). Peterson pleaded not guilty on some absconding allegations but acknowledged arrears on supervision fees. Peterson's wife, Candice Peterson, spoke on Zoom asking the board for "grace" and said her husband had changed while incarcerated. After questioning about an out‑of‑state arrest and use of an alias, the panel voted to revoke parole. Commissioner Steve Prater stated, "I don't have any choice, really, but to revoke you," and other panel members concurred. The record shows the revocation was effective immediately.

- Byron Corning (introduced in the record as Byron Corning, DOC identifier shown in the file). Corning faced a charge that had been amended to disturbing the peace; he pleaded not guilty initially and later entered a not‑guilty‑with‑statement plea, while the police report and victim statements were discussed on the record. After review, the panel revoked parole; the three commissioners voted to revoke and the chair announced the revocation.

- A parolee identified in the record as "Mister Watson" (hearing at St. Bernard/Blackman Power Detention Center) was charged with violating a protective order and admitting to pushing the mother of his child. The panel heard victim statements and law enforcement observations (a deputy noted an approximately 2‑inch scratch and a visible injury). The three commissioners voted to revoke.

- Darren Lynn Adams Jr. (DOC #626352, Caddo Correctional Center). Adams acknowledged guilty pleas on new possession charges and admitted absconding from supervision reported by Texas parole and local warrants; the panel recommended substance‑abuse programming but voted to revoke parole based on the new criminal activity and absconding.

- Justin Dwayne Johnson / Justin Harrison (East Baton Rouge panel file names appear as Justin Dwayne Johnson and later as Justin Harrison in the record). That file showed a dismissed domestic battery charge, a separate arrearage on supervision fees (the record lists about $1,900 in arrears), and other prior domestic arrests involving the same alleged victim. The panel discussed prior arrests and victim coordination summaries; the commissioners voted to revoke parole, citing repeated arrests involving the same victim and the fee arrearage.

Discussion versus decisions

Throughout the session the panel separated factual review and witness statements from formal votes. Commissioners asked clarifying questions, such as whether protective orders were active, whether arrests were dismissed or resulted in convictions, and whether parolees had completed recommended programs such as anger management or victim‑awareness classes. In some files commissioners recommended in‑custody programming (for example, substance abuse treatment) even while voting to revoke. Formal action in every case described above was a revocation vote by the three‑member panel.

Authorities and procedural notes

Panel members repeatedly noted that the parolees were not eligible for appointed counsel under "Supreme Court guidelines" as reflected on their preliminary‑hearing paperwork, and the Committee proceeded with the revocation hearings on that basis. The record also references an ICOTS (interstate compact) notice for at least one absconding matter and specific local court dockets and parish jail locations used as remote hearing sites.

What the panel did not do

In the cases summarized the board did not impose fines or devise a specific post‑revocation program schedule on the record beyond recommending treatment where appropriate; the actions taken at the hearing were limited to decisions to revoke parole or to recommend in‑custody programming. Several parolees indicated they wished to address supervision fee arrears; the commissioners noted fee collection was not a basis for imprisonment alone but that arrearage factored into the overall supervisory compliance picture.

The Committee on Parole concluded the hearing cycle after announcing revocation decisions for the listed files and closing the remote sessions. The panel recorded each revocation as effective immediately and ended the meeting at the stated times in the parish jails' records.