Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parole revoked for Clarence Brown after panel finds multiple violations
Summary
The Louisiana Committee on Parole revoked Clarence Brown’s parole at a Madison Parish hearing, citing failures to report, a guilty plea for theft and other violations; the panel recommended placement in a long-term substance-abuse program.
The Committee on Parole revoked the parole of Clarence Brown (DLC 399390) at a hearing in Madison Parish on Oct. 22, the panel announced after considering allegations that Brown failed to report, was arrested on theft charges and had not maintained employment or reporting requirements.
Chair Chuck Tillis presided. Parole board member Steve Prater read alleged violations and asked Brown to enter pleas; Brown acknowledged a guilty plea to a simple-theft charge and denied the allegation that he failed to report, saying he had told his parole officer he left New Orleans for safety and later went to Lafayette. "I explained to him that me being homeless in New Orleans would have cost me my life," Brown said.
The board described alleged violations by number (2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 on Brown’s supervision conditions). Prater noted Brown had been rearrested in March 2025 and that a preliminary hearing found some violations. LeDoux (board member) emphasized the difficulty of supervising someone the office could not locate.
Prater moved to revoke Brown’s parole and recommended that, owing to an underlying substance-abuse issue, Brown be placed in a long-term substance-abuse program if possible. LeDoux and Tillis concurred. "We cannot supervise people we cannot find, so my vote is to revoke," LeDoux said. The panel’s formal vote revoked parole; the board concluded with a recommendation for treatment placement but noted the Department of Corrections (DOC) determines housing.
The panel also recorded Brown owed $441 on supervision fees or related assessments. Board members asked about Brown’s employment status and program participation; Brown said he had no outside programs and was using a facility tablet for programming. The panel cited his history of multiple parole and probation terms when considering the seriousness of repeated violations.
Outcome and procedural note: The board’s action was a formal revocation of parole; members stated this was their recommendation to DOC, which retains authority over housing and specific placement.
Ending: The board adjourned its business with Brown after the unanimous revocation and recommendation for treatment placement.
