Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parole Hearings topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Louisiana parole panel hears cases across state; several denials and a handful of conditional paroles

Committee on Parole · October 21, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On Oct. 21, 2024, the Louisiana Committee on Parole interviewed inmates at multiple facilities and issued a series of decisions: parole was denied in high-profile cases with strong victim and law-enforcement opposition, while the board granted conditional parole in a smaller number of cases tied to completed programming and reentry plans.

The Louisiana Committee on Parole met Oct. 21, 2024, holding hearings at a string of Department of Corrections facilities and online. Chair Cheryl Renata presided over a five-member panel that heard inmates’ accounts, testimony from victims and law enforcement, and reports from wardens and reentry advocates before taking votes.

In one of the earliest and most contested cases, the panel denied parole for Joseph Holmes, serving a 100-year sentence for three counts of attempted first-degree murder stemming from a 1980 shooting that critically injured multiple officers. Holmes’ attorneys and supporters described his advanced age, decades of institutional programming and a reentry plan with the Louisiana Parole Project, but Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Weber and family members of the injured officers urged the panel to reject release. Sheriff Weber told the board that “forgiveness does not equate to release,” emphasizing the seriousness of the ambush-style attack. After an executive session the panel voted unanimously to deny Holmes’ request.

The panel denied parole in multiple other cases where prosecutors and law enforcement registered opposition or where members cited prior supervision failures and relatively recent disciplinary issues. Denials included rehearings and initial hearings for repeat-applicants and individuals with revocation histories.

The board granted parole in several cases where members said institutional conduct, programming completion and concrete reentry plans reduced short-term public-safety risks. Kenneth Smothers, who has served decades and whose supporters and institutional staff documented sustained programming and a placement plan with the Parole Project, was granted parole with supervised placement and conditions. Smothers reacted at the hearing, saying, “Thank you, Jesus,” when the board announced the decision.

In Franklin Parish the board granted conditional parole to Eugene Watkins after hearing testimony about sustained sobriety, program participation and a plan to report to a day-reporting center for treatment and vocational support. The board made parole contingent on the completion of internal DOC step programming and specified a curfew during the initial months of supervision.

Across the day the panel repeatedly balanced three considerations: the inmate’s record and conduct in custody; the presence and strength of victim and law-enforcement opposition; and concrete reentry supports such as verified housing, employer commitments, parole-project placement and vocational plans. Where victims and law enforcement strongly opposed release or where applicants had recent revocations or a history of serious violent offenses, the board predominantly voted to deny. Where institutional compliance, programming and verified reentry supports were documented and opposition was limited, members were more likely to approve conditional parole with added supervision requirements.

Votes at a glance (selected cases) - Joseph Holmes (DOC #96562): parole denied (unanimous). Prosecutor and sheriff opposition and victim statements were decisive. - Kenneth Smothers (DOC #89904): parole granted to the Louisiana Parole Project with special conditions (placement and supervision). Support from facility staff and the Parole Project was cited. - Byron (Byron William) Nevis (DOC #006277): parole denied; panel cited revocation history, DA opposition and proximity to mandatory release. - Raymond Blacher (DOC #435148): parole denied; board noted prior lost good time and recent disciplinary history. - Jason Graves (DOC #370875): parole denied by majority due to victim and law-enforcement opposition despite strong institutional endorsements. - Steven Hulin (DOC #744291): parole granted conditionally pending completion of a DOC inpatient substance-abuse program and intensive anger-management. - Larry Thompson (multiple DOC numbers): parole denied unanimously on public-safety grounds after DA presented extensive violent-crime history. - Alvin Dubose (DOC #361161): parole denied based on disciplinary record and supervision failures. - Eric Staley (DOC #766293): parole denied; panel cited criminal history and a high-speed incident that endangered children. - Eugene Watkins (Franklin Parish): parole granted conditionally upon completion of the DOC step program and reporting to a day-reporting center; initial six-month curfew imposed.

What the board said it weighed Panel members repeatedly stressed public safety as the primary consideration, while acknowledging rehabilitative progress. Chair Renata and other panelists recorded that they give weight to age, institutional compliance and documented reentry plans, but that “victim opposition and a pattern of supervision failures” frequently tip the balance against parole.

Next steps Most denied applicants will be eligible to reapply at the statutory interval recorded in the hearing notice; those granted parole will move to supervised release under the conditions set by the board. Several decisions included requests that parole officers or the Parole Project verify placements and enforce curfews and treatment requirements.

This summary draws from the Committee on Parole hearings and testimony on Oct. 21, 2024, at DOC facilities across Louisiana and from remote participants. The board’s formal written decisions and any conditions will be posted to the official docket and recorded in institutional files.