Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Parole Revocation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Louisiana Committee on Parole revokes multiple paroles, grants one case after hearings in Baton Rouge

Committee on Parole · March 3, 2026
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 March 3, 2026, the Louisiana Committee on Parole reviewed multiple revocation cases in Baton Rouge. The board revoked parole for several individuals—including Norman Byrd, James Mitchell, Travis McKay, Raymond Alexander, Lonel Davis and Tracy Parker—granted parole to Jeremy Pollock, continued one case and imposed conditions in others.

The Louisiana Committee on Parole held hearings in Baton Rouge on March 3, 2026, to review a series of parole revocation cases. Acting Chairman Steve Prater, with members Jerry Ledoux and Chuck Tillis, considered each file, heard statements from parolees and supporters, and took several votes after brief executive sessions for procedural discussion.

Parolee Norman Byrd (DOC #583803) pleaded guilty with a statement after the board read missed office visits and drug-screening dates stretching from June through November 2025. Byrd described recent family bereavements and housing and financial instability, said he wanted treatment and asked to be placed at Palmetto in Rayville. Byrd told the panel, “I’d like to go get some help,” and said he had completed prior programs but relapsed. After an executive session the board voted unanimously to revoke his parole; the panel announced the revocation as of 8:57 a.m.

In contrast, the board granted parole to Jeremy Pollock (DLC noted) at 9:23 a.m. Warden Betsy Bickham and facility staff described Pollock as a trustee with consistent good conduct. Supporters including his mother, Cheryl Pollock, and his brother Benjamin Pollock—who identified himself as the victim in the underlying case—urged release, emphasizing Pollock’s role as a parent and his participation in treatment. Pollock told the board he had been clean “44 months and 17 days.” The panel voted to grant parole and announced the favorable recommendation.

The board revoked parole for James Mitchell (DLC #411770) after discussing pending burglary charges in Caddo Parish and an arrearage for supervision fees. Mitchell’s counsel sought a continuance tied to an April 6 court date, but the panel, following an executive session, voted to revoke for violations of conditions 4 and 10 and announced the revocation at 9:42 a.m.

Travis McKay (DLC #462614) acknowledged a guilty plea to a misdemeanor domestic-abuse-related charge and a protective-order violation and asked the panel to consider work-release or road-release placement so he could secure housing and employment on release. Board members noted repeated supervision history and voted to revoke parole for violations of conditions 4 and 10 (revoked as of 9:59 a.m.).

Toby James (DLC #424991) faced an aggravated-assault allegation that had been dismissed; the panel discussed evidence and conflicting accounts about knives reportedly recovered from a vehicle. One member voted to revoke; another voted to place James in a transitional work program in lieu of revocation; the chair announced revocation as of 10:12 a.m.

Michael Coffee (DOC #721795) pleaded guilty with a statement to an amended simple-battery charge that occurred in jail and said the incident was self-defense. Noting medical treatment for the other inmate, the panel voted not to revoke Coffee’s parole but imposed a no-contact requirement with the named person (action announced at 10:39 a.m.).

Raymond Alexander’s case drew extensive advocacy from family and defense counsel, who requested a continuance because a trial court’s quash is under appeal. Counsel argued the case was in a pending posture; the board reviewed law-enforcement reports stating that officers recovered a fully loaded .40‑caliber Smith & Wesson with 14 rounds in Mr. Alexander’s waistband and that he acknowledged possession. After executive session the panel voted to revoke for violations tied to firearm possession and other conditions; the revocation was announced at 11:25 a.m.

The board continued the hearing for Jerry Broussard because counsel was engaged in trial and a continuance to the next available setting was granted.

Lonel Davis (who also referred to case law and asserted he had not been properly notified about registration obligations) refused earlier to sign the revocation paperwork and argued the sex-offender registration statute did not apply retroactively to his 1990 conviction. Orleans Public Defender representatives urged assistance and said Davis had been out of custody and compliant for years prior to this issue. The panel concluded that registration was required under current law and voted to revoke Davis’s parole for failure to register (revoked at 12:03 p.m.).

Tracy Parker (DOC #242773) admitted to absconding from supervision for roughly three years and acknowledged arrears of about $3,989. After the panel reviewed absconding and supervision failures, the board voted to revoke parole (revocation announced at 12:15 p.m.).

Votes at a glance (selected cases): Norman Byrd — revoke (panel vote; revocation announced 8:57 a.m.); Jeremy Pollock — grant parole (panel vote; announced 9:23 a.m.); James Mitchell — revoke (9:42 a.m.); Travis McKay — revoke (9:59 a.m.); Toby James — revoke (10:12 a.m.); Michael Coffee — do not revoke, but no-contact condition (10:39 a.m.); Raymond Alexander — revoke (11:25 a.m.); Jerry Broussard — continued to next setting; Lonel Davis — revoke for failure to register (12:03 p.m.); Tracy Parker — revoke for absconding (12:15 p.m.).

The board repeatedly used executive session for procedural deliberations before returning to public vote announcements. Several cases featured advocacy from family members, parole-reentry providers (notably the Louisiana Parole Project), and public defenders who asked the board to consider community supports or to wait for related court proceedings. Where the board cited law‑enforcement evidence (for example in the Raymond Alexander matter), it relied on the parole officer’s summary and investigative reports in its decision-making.

The Committee on Parole indicated several next steps: implementing conditions (no-contact orders), continuing cases tied to pending criminal-court dispositions, and entering parole revocations that will affect each individual’s release timeline.