Parole board revokes parole in three cases and denies parole for several others during Sept. 17 hearings

The Louisiana Committee on Parole met in Baton Rouge on Sept. 17, 2024, and issued a series of revocations and denials after hearing offender statements, staff reports, victim impact testimony and recommendations from prosecutors and reentry advocates.

Chair Jerry Ledoux and panel members Chuck Tillis and Danny Barra presided over multiple hearings that day. The board revoked parole for offenders found to have absconded supervision or to have refused required program participation, and denied parole in other cases where victims, prosecutors or law enforcement urged the board to refuse early release.

Among the actions taken, the panel found an offender guilty of absconding to Port Arthur, Texas, and voted to revoke parole after noting the travel without permission and related arrest. In a separate hearing at Bayou Durham, an offender who disputed a required element of an in‑custody MRT (moral reconation therapy) program said he completed course work but declined to give a required group testimony; the board accepted his preference to be revoked rather than continue under a special condition and revoked his in‑lieu status.

The panel also considered cases in which victims and prosecutors urged the board to deny parole. For a long‑custody offender who has been at a State Police barracks for 14 years, family and a parole‑support organization urged release and a reentry plan in Mississippi; the victim’s family strongly opposed release and the board denied parole, citing the seriousness of the underlying offense and continued victim harm.

Prosecutors and victim advocates appeared in multiple hearings and were explicit in their opposition in cases involving vehicular homicide and forcible sexual offenses; law enforcement and district attorneys' offices were cited in the board’s deliberations as reasons to deny early release.

The board noted factual records in each file — court minutes, plea agreements or detainers — and weighed them alongside in‑custody conduct, completed programming, and victim impact statements. In several hearings the panel urged continued good behavior and recommended that offenders reapply for parole once they had additional clean conduct or completed outstanding requirements.

What happens next: for revoked parole cases, board staff will return the offenders to custody and arrange for time computation. For denied parole cases, the board recorded the votes as denials; several offenders were told they can reapply after additional time free of disciplinary write‑ups or after meeting statutory requirements for reconsideration.

Actions at a glance: the panel recorded multiple formal votes during the session, revoking parole in absconding and program noncompliance cases and denying parole where prosecutors and victims opposed release. The board’s decisions referenced court records, victim statements, program records and staff recommendations as the basis for each outcome.