Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants 38 absolute pardons, denies 1; continues 1 case

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met by video conference on Aug. 6, 2025, for its scheduled absolute-pardon session and voted on more than three dozen applications. The board tentatively granted absolute pardons to 38 applicants, denied one application and continued one case to the Sept. 3 docket for follow-up. Results announced at the hearing are tentative pending administrative record checks and criminal-record clearance by the Connecticut State Police as usual.

At the start of the session Chair Robert Czajuskas said the board had reviewed cases in a prescreen and that any pardon voted at the hearing would remain tentative until all background checks and agency clearances are complete. In most matters the board allowed applicants to make brief statements, asked follow-up questions about rehabilitation steps and community involvement, then took a motion and roll-call vote.

The board’s decisions followed a common pattern: applicants described post-conviction rehabilitation, participation in treatment or reentry programming, steady employment and community or volunteer activity. Several applicants said they had used training or job skills learned in prison to found small businesses or to mentor others. In a small number of cases board members pressed applicants about recent behavior, the length of sobriety or outstanding restitution before voting. One application (for Bryant Forrest) was denied after discussion; two other grants drew a dissenting vote by one panel member. One applicant’s case (Kaiser Khan) was continued to the Sept. 3 docket.

Votes at a glance (motion text abbreviated; vote counts reflect the roll calls recorded on the hearing):

- Rigoberto Monzon — Motion: grant an absolute pardon — Outcome: granted — Vote: 3–0 - Argenis Burgos — granted — 3–0 - Joseph Allen — granted — 3–0 - George (G.) Bollerin — granted — 3–0 - Samuel Bermudez — granted — 3–0 - Mara Hackbarth — granted — 3–0 - Frederick Faulkner — granted — 3–0 - Brian Roy — granted — 3–0 - Jorge (George) Aponte Rivas — granted — 3–0 - Matthew Axtell — granted — 3–0 - Michael Branch — granted — 3–0 - Marvin Javier — granted — 3–0 - Raymond Martinez — granted — 3–0 - Christopher Scagnelli — granted — 3–0 - Jeffrey Bork — granted — 3–0 - Gene Brown — granted — 3–0 - Damien Carter — granted — 3–0 - Michael DeCarlo — granted — 2–1 (one dissent noted in transcript) - Anthony Angala — granted — 3–0 - Thomas Flynn — granted — 3–0 - Bryant Forrest — Motion (to deny) — Outcome: denied (motion to deny approved) — Vote: 3–0 - Corey Garicki — granted — 3–0 - Jose Gomez — granted — 3–0 - Lawrence Gorham — granted — 3–0 - Kente James — granted — 3–0 - Aaron Johnson — granted — 3–0 - Emsley Johnson — granted — 3–0 - Mishaan (Mishaun) Jones — granted — 3–0 - Kaiser Khan — continued to 2025-09-03 (applicant requested continuance; motion to continue approved) - Glenn Marco — granted — 3–0 - Kelly Novotinski — granted (majority) — 2–1 (one dissent recorded) - Janice Parker — granted — 3–0 - James Reichardt — granted — 3–0 - Christopher Rogers — granted — 3–0 - Alexandro Streeter — granted — 3–0 - Angelo Sanchez — granted — 3–0 - William Tinsley — granted — 3–0 - Paul Torres — granted — 3–0

Why it matters: board members told applicants their votes were grounded in the board’s statutory standards for pardons, including the seriousness of the original offense, the passage of time, evidence of rehabilitation, community support, and public safety. The board reiterated that even granted pardons remain tentative until administrative and state police record-clearance steps are completed and certificates are mailed to successful applicants. Several applicants said a pardon or clearance would allow them to pursue work or travel opportunities (including out-of-state licensing or cross-border travel) that remain limited by a conviction on public records.

What to watch next: the board posts decisions to its website and sends email notices; pardon certificates are only final after the Connecticut State Police and other required checks clear the administrative process. The single denial (Bryant Forrest) was accompanied by board comments that the matter was recent and would benefit from a longer period of stable, documented behavior in the community before reconsideration. One case (Kaiser Khan) was continued to the Sept. 3 docket at the applicant’s request.

Votes and administrative follow-up: board staff repeatedly told applicants that pardons are ‘‘tentative’’ until the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification completes record checks; applicants were reminded not to claim an erased record until they receive a mailed certificate. Board members and staff also noted the board’s standard practice of posting results on its website and sending emailed decisions within a week of the hearing.

Ending: The board completed the hearing after taking votes on the slate of applications and adjourned after a short administrative break. Because the board’s decisions are tentative until the record-clearance process finishes, the official effective date for any pardon depends on completion of those steps and issuance of the certificate of pardon.