Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

The document details parole hearings conducted by the Committee on Parole. The first hearing involved Inmate Samad Roberts, DOC number 774-552, who is serving time for battery of a dating partner involving a firearm. The inmate acknowledged emotional control issues, citing ODD, bipolar depression, and past incidents of violence. Supporters, including his mother and a prospective employer, testified regarding his good character outside of New Orleans and offered post-release support, including employment opportunities. The initial vote resulted in a 2-1 decision to grant parole conditionally, requiring enrollment in a 26-week domestic violence program, no contact with the victim, and adherence to prescribed medication. However, as the required vote was not unanimous, parole was ultimately denied for this session. The committee recommended the inmate be transferred to facilitate access to necessary mental health and anger management programs. A subsequent hearing involved Inmate Ernest Arnold King, DOC number 1698-94.

The initial part of the proceedings involved the call to order and quorum confirmation for the Pardon Board meeting on October 29, 2025. Key discussions included the unanimous approval of the minutes from the regular meeting held on October 28, 2025. The primary focus then shifted to consideration of applications for clemency and pardon. The board addressed the case of Dustin Moss, where the decision was made to continue the matter due to the applicant's counsel being engaged in a murder trial; testimony from interested parties was taken for the permanent record. Subsequently, the board heard the case of Ricky Celeststein, who is seeking commutation of his sentence for second-degree kidnapping and first-degree rape, receiving testimony from himself, his brother, and a sister regarding his growth and rehabilitation efforts in prison, including completion of sex offender treatment and other classes. The warden noted required next steps for Mr. Celeststein, such as substance abuse treatment and accountability letters.

The proceedings involved a parole revocation hearing for an individual, Donald Earl Higginbotham, where the panel explained the procedure including the review of the parole revocation questionnaire and the reading of allegations. Key allegations included moving from an approved residence without permission, committing misdemeanor theft and possession of stolen things, possession of marijuana, and resisting an officer, along with admissions of substance use (marijuana and methamphetamines). The discussion also covered substance abuse treatment history and the individual's plea to the charges, with partial admissions of guilt. A separate segment involved a revocation hearing for another individual, Travison Lavalay, facing allegations of failing to reside at the listed address and violating sex offender contract conditions by having contact with juveniles and failing to attend required treatment. The board members expressed concerns regarding the lack of commitment to rehabilitation shown by the first individual, while the second individual pleaded partially guilty to the violations.

The committee meeting included the parole hearing for Toby Page (DOC #448909), who was convicted as a first felony offender for illegal use of a weapon and manslaughter stemming from an incident in 1975, resulting in a 30-year sentence. Mr. Page detailed the incident, apologized, and discussed rehabilitation efforts, including substance abuse courses and GED completion. Representatives from the Louisiana Parole Project and Mr. Page's aunt spoke in support, outlining release plans involving housing and sobriety support. Members of the victim's family spoke in opposition. The board ultimately voted to grant parole to the Louisiana Parole Project, contingent upon no contact with the victim's family, citing Mr. Page's good conduct and rehabilitation progress while incarcerated.

The meeting commenced with the reading of the roll call and reiterated time limitations for public comment periods. Public comments were taken first regarding all applications, with specified time allocations for speakers for and against, as well as for the offender's legal representation. The main business involved the administrative review of clemency applications, specifically addressing the case of Todd Wessinger, who was sentenced for two counts of first-degree murder. Several parties provided testimony in support of clemency for Mr. Wessinger, highlighting his spiritual and emotional maturity, his role as a mentor to other inmates, and his 28 years of model inmate behavior. Opposing viewpoints were presented by representatives from the District Attorneys Association and the Attorney General's office, who urged the denial of clemency petitions, arguing against the process being rushed and advocating for justice for the victims' families. Legal counsel also presented arguments detailing the flaws in the capital punishment system and advocating for the right to due process for the applicant.