Louisiana parole board revokes some paroles, imposes conditions on others after day of hearings in Baton Rouge

The Louisiana Committee on Parole held a multi‑site session in Baton Rouge and several parish jails on a single day, hearing multiple requests to revoke parole or to grant early release. Chair Jerry LeDoux presided with Pete Freeman and Steve Prater joining the panel. The board issued a mix of outcomes: some paroles were revoked, some parole requests were denied, and several offenders were continued on supervision with special conditions.

In the first case the panel heard, the board found Corey Crockett guilty of failing to report, engaging in criminal conduct and failing to pay supervision fees and voted to revoke his parole. Chair Jerry LeDoux stated the panel’s view that police reports and witness statements supported those findings and announced the revocation.

Other decisions included a revocation for Terry Moore after the panel found he had violated condition 4 related to battery of a dating partner; the panel read the allegations, heard a supporter speak, and voted to revoke. In contrast, Jeremy Jones (DOC 723046) was not revoked after an executive session; the panel ordered special conditions including enrollment at a day‑reporting center, anger management classes and no contact with the alleged victim, and required him to become current on fees.

The panel also heard parole‑release requests. Donnie (Donnie) Johnson, serving a 25‑year sentence for distribution offenses and with limited time served, had his parole request denied because members said he had not served a sufficient portion of his sentence. The board denied parole for Edward Washington after panelists cited his violent history and ongoing victim opposition.

One of the lengthier cases involved Jonathan Mills, who faced an allegation tied to an attempted firearm purchase that had been amended to false swearing. Mills and his attorney, Devin Jones, told the panel he attempted a legal purchase after neighborhood shootings and that he disclosed a conviction during the transaction; counsel argued for leniency. After an executive session the panel voted not to revoke Mills’ parole, continuing supervision but admonishing him to follow conditions.

Where the panel chose not to revoke, members generally added supervisory requirements such as substance‑abuse evaluations, day‑reporting center enrollment, or no‑contact orders with alleged victims. Panelists repeatedly flagged supervision fees in arrears as a factor in hearings and frequently read those amounts into the record.

The session covered additional cases at multiple parish jails; outcomes ranged from revocation to denial of parole to continuations on supervision with special conditions. The panel repeatedly emphasized that parole is an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with conditions and that repeated supervision failures or violent histories weighed heavily against release.

The board adjourned after completing business at the various parish sites. Remaining next steps include formal entry of each decision into the offender records and any follow‑up by probation and parole staff to implement required special‑condition enrollments or fee reconciliations.