Parole board hears multiple revocation cases; some paroles revoked, others kept under conditions

The Committee on Parole met in a series of remote revocation hearings and made split decisions across the docket, revoking parole in multiple cases and imposing noncustodial sanctions and program conditions in others.

Acting Chair Pete Freeman presided over the panel. At the first hearing the board considered an allegation of domestic abuse against a supervisee identified in the record as Mr. Jupiter. The district attorney had declined the criminal charge after the arrest, and the alleged victim later told the board she had given incorrect information. The panel issued a formal reprimand, added special conditions — including no contact with the victim and mandatory completion of an anger‑management/domestic‑violence course — and decided not to revoke parole. "So, today your parole has not been revoked and we added a special condition to stay away from the victim at all cost and also to take a domestic abuse violence class," Freeman told the supervisee.

By contrast, Timothy Duvall was found to have missed required reporting, shown on GPS to be living away from his stated address, and faced pending misdemeanor theft and resisting‑an‑officer charges. Duvall pleaded guilty to several reporting and residency violations. The panel concluded he violated multiple conditions and voted to revoke parole.

The board reviewed a high‑profile domestic complaint for Ryan Brad Street, where the complainant, Tashanda Marcelin, addressed the panel and apologized for filing an inaccurate report. Marcelin told the panel, "I was wrong for calling the police on you… you did not hit me." After weighing prior history and the prosecutor’s decisions, the panel opted not to revoke Street’s parole but imposed conditions including no contact with specified individuals, a requirement to perform 10 hours per week of community service until employed, and a period of electronic monitoring.

Michael Griffin, whose file showed missed reporting, a contested domestic allegation and arrears in supervision fees, was reviewed next. Counsel said the district attorney had refused the criminal charges and urged release based on the supervisee’s employment and family ties; nevertheless the board voted to revoke Griffin’s parole after finding violations relating to reporting and contact requirements.

Marvin King, arrested after officers observed a ski mask and found a small quantity of marijuana, drew significant advocacy from public defenders and reentry partners. Counsel noted King had obtained employment on release and letters of support from community programs; the panel declined to revoke and instead placed King under reentry supervision with a First72/mission‑type program and ordered random drug and alcohol screens and program participation.

Several other hearings produced hybrid outcomes. Travian Jones admitted reporting and residency violations and described a period of homelessness; the board decided against revocation and ordered six months of work release to stabilize employment and permit payment of supervision fees. Andrew Coy — whose attorney submitted receipts and an employer verification—was sent to a transitional work program for six months rather than being revoked, with the parole officer to monitor reporting and payments.

The board took a sterner approach in cases involving firearms and controlled substances. Emanuel Massie faced allegations arising from an arrest that included a firearm and quantities consistent with distribution; after reviewing body‑worn camera evidence and narratives the panel found violations and revoked parole. Herbert Moon and John Petri were each the subject of repeated protective‑order complaints and related police narratives; despite victim statements and defense advocacy, the panel concluded the repeated infractions warranted revocation in both cases.

Throughout the session board members repeatedly separated three types of outcomes: discussion and case context, noncustodial directions (work release, monitoring, program placement), and formal revocation votes. Several cases were returned to supervision with conditions intended to support reentry (employment placement, treatment and monitoring), while others were revoked because of new arrests or repeated pattern violations. The board used executive sessions to review sensitive evidence, then announced final votes in public.

Next steps: the board’s written orders and special conditions will be sent to the supervisees’ parole officers; some supervisees were directed to enroll immediately in court‑monitored programs and to begin electronic monitoring or community service as a condition of continued supervision.