Louisiana Committee on Parole revokes parole in multiple December hearings

The Louisiana Committee on Parole met at DLC headquarters in Baton Rouge on Dec. 4, 2024, and voted to revoke parole for several individuals after hearing victim accounts, parole-officer reports and questioning from board members.

Chair Steve Prater opened the session and said the board would hear public comment and staff reports before considering revocation decisions. In the first case, a victim representative, Travis Richard, urged the board to revoke his father’s parole, saying the man had repeatedly returned to abusive behavior and had benefited from clerical sentence-credit changes. Parole officer Steve Everly told the board the parolee had multiple alcohol violations, recorded a 0.15 blood-alcohol reading after leaving a nearby residence, failed to report an out-of-area stay and stayed at a hotel the officer said was within 287 feet of Oak Lawn Junior High School — a potential breach of a *** offender contract that requires a 1,000-foot exclusion. The parolee acknowledged an alcohol problem, said he was attending AA and pursuing training and work, but also admitted several relapses. After questioning, board members voted to revoke parole.

At roughly 09:37 the board heard the case of Brooklyn Scott (DLC number read on the record). Prater read alleged violations including a Jan. 4, 2024 positive test for methamphetamine and THC, an arrest for home invasion/theft of a firearm and arrears on parole fees (recorded at $1,258). Supporters including a girlfriend and a community member described Scott’s efforts at stable housing, child care and training. The board noted a video and written police statements and a protective order connected to the underlying incident. Scott acknowledged the drug tests and arrears; following deliberation the board voted to revoke parole.

Subsequent hearings followed the same format: the board read alleged rule violations, heard statements from parolees and any supporters, questioned parole officers and the subjects, then voted. In one Franklin Parish case the board cited failures to report, conflicting statements about an arrest in Las Vegas and other rule breaches and voted to revoke. In Ascension Parish, Jared Brown told the board he had been stabbed while in jail and said he acted in self-defense; the board nonetheless voted to revoke parole after finding a protective-order violation and related rule breaches. The board also held a hearing for Christopher Cage (DOC 509089), where members cited missed reporting months, a positive urine test for amphetamine/methamphetamine, missed visits and fee arrears; members voted to revoke parole.

The votes were announced on the record and each revocation was entered as the board’s formal action. In each case the chair or lead questioner read the specific rule numbers alleged to have been violated (commonly “rule 4” for criminal behavior/drug or alcohol use and other numbered contract conditions), and the board recorded guilty or not-guilty pleas and any brief statements from the parolees. Several parolees acknowledged addiction or that they had relapsed; supporters at some hearings urged the board to allow continuing community-based treatment and employment efforts. The board consistently distinguished between discussion, direction and formal action: staff and officers provided evidence and the board then voted on formal revocation actions.

The Committee on Parole concluded its session and closed the hearings; chair Steve Prater announced each revocation verdict on the record and formally ended each case. The board did not announce detailed written sentencing or return dates on the record during the hearing for every case; the transcript shows the revocations and the rule numbers cited but not a standardized post-decision timeline for return to custody in every matter.

The committee’s proceedings included a mix of victim statements, parole-officer presentations using electronic-monitor data and breath/urine results, parolee admissions of substance use or failures to report, and supporting statements from family members or community supporters. Next procedural steps for each case (transportation to custody, exact confinement dates, and administrative credits) will be handled by Department of Corrections staff and are not detailed in the hearing transcript.