Crime

Massachusetts Parole Board rules Fall River man convicted of murder to be released on parole with conditions

Published

on

A Fall River man convicted of a city murder as a juvenile has been granted parole with conditions.

According to the Massachusetts Parole Board, on June 12, 2001, following a jury trial in Bristol Superior Court, Corie Stokes was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Stokes was also found guilty of armed home invasion, for which he was sentenced to a concurrent term of 20-25 years, and unlawful possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to a concurrent term of 1-2 years. A charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery was filed.

On December 24, 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for Suffolk District & Others in which the Court determined that the statutory provisions mandating life without the possibility of parole are invalid as applied to juveniles convicted of first-degree murder and decided that such juvenile offenders must be given a parole hearing. On September 10, 2014, Stokes’ life sentence was revised to life with the possibility of parole. On the same date, Stokes’ armed home invasion sentence was revised to a term of 10-15 years to be served concurrently with his life sentence. Stokes was 17 years old at the time of the offenses.

According to information provided by the Board, on August 9, 1999, Stokes and a co-defendant entered the home of Cecil Smith in Fall River. The two men were armed with firearms and intended to rob Smith. Smith was fatally shot during the robbery. A witness later testified that Stokes admitted to being the shooter and hiding the gun. Two weapons were located near the scene of the crime.

Stokes appeared before the Board for a review hearing on August 3, 2023. Parole was denied after his initial hearing in 2019. Parole was granted after a review hearing-in 2021. Stokes was released to parole supervision on June 15, 2022, but was returned to custody following a violation on January 17, 2023.

The Board concluded by unanimous vote that Stokes is a suitable candidate for parole at this time.

The Board took into consideration Stokes’ institutional behavior, as well as his participation in available work, educational, and treatment programs during the period of his incarceration. The Board also considered a risk and needs assessment and whether risk reduction programs could effectively minimize Stokes’ risk of recidivism. The Board is of the unanimous opinion that Stokes is rehabilitated and, therefore, merits parole at this time, subject to special conditions.

Stokes was before the Board for a review hearing ad he was released to parole supervision on 6/15/2022. He was initially released to the Dismas House. While he did receive several graduated sanctions, his overall adjustment was good, according to the Board. On 1/16/2023, his Parole Officer learned that a warrant had been issued by Haverhill Police Department following a complaint that he refused to return a vehicle to the owner. On 1/16/2023, the Massachusetts State Police arrested Stokes. He was subsequently charged with larceny of a motor vehicle and receiving a stolen motor vehicle. At the time of his arrest, it is also noted that a person with a criminal record was also in the vehicle. Stokes was returned to custody on 1/17/2023. Both charges have since been dismissed. The Board stated that since returning to custody, Stokes resumed programming and addressed the issues that contributed to his return to custody. In the hearing, the Board acknowledged that some of his struggles on parole were to be expected, hence his mental health counseling was stipulated. The Board, however, addressed the interpersonal issues, failure to be honest with parole, and relationship issues as being paramount to his return to custody. The Board also addressed concerns with social media posts that were in contrast to the expectations of positive citizenship and good character. Stokes was forthcoming, humble, and agreed with recommendations provided to him. The Board believes that Stokes will again benefit from a transition through a re-entry program and to re-engage in counseling.


The special conditions of Stokes release includes: Waive work when program allows; Must be at home between 10PM and 6AM; Electronic monitoring; Must take prescribed medication; Supervise for drugs, testing in accordance with agency policy; Supervise for liquor abstinence, testing in accordance with agency policy; Must report to assigned MA Parole Office on day of release; No contact with victim’s family; Must have mental health counseling for adjustment, relationship issues (family), and anxiety disorder; Residential Program CRJ for at least 90 days; AA/NA at least 3 times per week; Mandatory sign releases of information.

3 Comments

  1. MortisMaximus

    November 9, 2023 at 1:32 am

    This is outrageous. This person will reoffend. Who will be held responsible when he harms another innocent victim?

  2. Fed Up

    November 9, 2023 at 7:51 am

    1st degree murder and gets paroled. reason #653 why Massachusetts sucks.

  3. TheRiv69

    November 9, 2023 at 8:47 pm

    Both the penal and mental “healthcare” systems are extremely dysfunctional and it’s likely that they cause more harm than good. This is symptomatic of the increasingly sick society that we’ve allowed to come about. A common and fatal flaw in both of these institutions is the hubris that drives their policymakers. The incompetence that is borne of this hubris is worse than the corruption that also thrives in these managerial class run institutions. As an example, anyone who thinks that mandatory AA/NA meeting attendance can or will produce the cathartic results that these fellowships (programs of action) have demonstrated as possible in their orthodox/organic forms is clearly detached from reality. It’s also likely that the “mental health” industry has buried its cancerous tentacles so deep into these fellowships that their effectiveness is all but neutered, but I digress…
    We most likely-as is too often the case- have a considerably bad apple (given that it’s a very complex issue, the cultivation of bad apples…) that has done lots of bad shit and got caught doing some REALLY bad shit that was sent to the criminal gladiator school for “rehabilitation” which statistically produces more likely to reoffend types than not. The only question is: what will the severity of the crime be when he does reoffend?
    But hey, what do I know? I’m just a guy who barely escaped with my life. God help us all!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending

Exit mobile version