Parole board hears multiple revocation cases March 18; several paroles revoked, others sent to treatment or work release

The Committee on Parole met remotely on March 18, 2026, and reviewed a series of parole-revocation hearings held at correctional facilities across the state. Acting chair Pete Freeman opened the session and the panel considered individual cases that resulted in a mix of revocations, alternatives such as work release and treatment referrals, and continuances until pending criminal matters are resolved.

The board delayed one hearing after determining the parolee was not prepared. "We'll continue your hearing to after you go to court," Freeman said when a participant reported recent postponements and pending charges, and the panel formally continued that case so the board can consider court outcomes before acting.

In a case the panel heard for Donovan Gordon (speaker 4), the board recorded guilty pleas or pleas-with-statement on several violations, including failure to report and an interstate-compact issue. Gordon and a family member described homelessness and unstable contact information; the board continued the matter until the parolee's next court date so the full record can be assembled.

For Jeremiah Alexander (speaker 3), the board accepted a treatment-centered release plan. Social worker Brian Lawrence (speaker 5) and defense counsel Shannon Matthew (speaker 13) outlined a referral to The Grove Recovery Center, which would provide housing, an intensive outpatient program and case management. Freeman and the panel voted not to revoke Alexander’s parole and added a special condition requiring participation in the treatment plan; Freeman warned that leaving inpatient treatment early would trigger rearrest.

Other hearings produced different outcomes. At several facilities the board voted to revoke parole where members concluded that evidence and supervision records showed continued criminal conduct or repeated failures to comply with supervision conditions. In one case the panel recommended transfer to an inpatient facility for psychiatric or substance-abuse evaluation and treatment before placement. In cases where probation officers described limited resources to address homelessness and documentation problems, the board sometimes chose work release or treatment placement in lieu of immediate revocation, while urging supervised participants to obtain identification, steady employment and complete paperwork for interstate transfers.

Board members repeatedly pressed supervising agents on communication and case notes. In one hearing a family member said she tried repeatedly to contact a supervising agent and found voicemail full; the board noted that family outreach does not replace the parolee’s responsibility to maintain contact but asked staff to improve communication where possible. Probation staff detailed attempts to contact parolees and cited multiple missed reports and missed treatment appointments when recommending revocation in some cases.

Votes at a glance - Donovan Gordon: hearing continued until after court date (continuance). Panel motion to continue carried. - Jeremiah Alexander: parole not revoked; released to a plan that includes inpatient treatment and The Grove Recovery Center (panel vote: do not revoke with special condition). - Eric Stoller: board recommended inpatient substance-abuse treatment or DOC-approved inpatient placement and voted to revoke (panel indicated revocation and recommended transfer/evaluation). - Antoine Davenport: after executive session, majority voted to revoke parole pending resolution of criminal charges. - James Jewell: parole revoked (panel vote to revoke after review of reporting and pending charges). - Brandy Myers: parole revoked (panel found violations, including proximity condition and discovery of a small meth amount). - Nicole (Wendy) McClintock: in lieu of revocation, placed in work-release program with instructions to complete interstate-compact paperwork while enrolled. - Kendrick Griffin: parole revoked after review of alleged domestic-abuse strangulation allegation and supporting police report; the board recommended victim- and program-related follow-up. - Paul Welcome: parole revoked; panel recommended psychiatric evaluation and treatment as appropriate.

Why it matters These hearings show the board balancing two recurring concerns: public safety where the record indicates ongoing criminal conduct, and rehabilitation where treatment and stable housing appear likely to reduce reoffending. The panel repeatedly indicated limited community resources (housing, ID assistance) and urged supervising agents and providers to prioritize transition services where possible.

What comes next Some hearings were continued pending court action; others included directives for staff (for example, beginning interstate-compact paperwork while an individual is in work release). Where the board ordered treatment conditions, the panel warned that failure to comply could trigger rearrest and a formal revocation. The board closed the day’s session after recording each vote and sign-out times.

Quotes "We'll continue your hearing to after you go to court," acting chair Pete Freeman said when a parolee reported an unexpected postponement. "That way, we'll have everything, and we can go from there."

On the Alexander matter Freeman told the parolee: "I think they got a good plan set up for you…so my vote today is to do not revoke, and add the special condition that you released to the plan set up by mister Brian Lars [sic], which includes inpatient treatment."

A social worker who recommended treatment for one parolee described the program: "They'll cover the substance use, they'll cover the housing, and also, any underlying issues with his mental health," Brian Lawrence said when describing a referral.

Methodology and limits This article is based only on the board's recorded remote proceedings on March 18, 2026. It reports actions the panel took, summaries of testimony and direct quotes attributed to speakers as named or labeled in the transcript. It does not infer later outcomes (for example, post-release compliance) or expand on pending criminal charges beyond what was discussed on the record.

Ending The board adjourned after completing the day's hearings and recording sign-out times; several matters were continued for further development or court resolution.