Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants most requests, denies one and continues two at April 2 hearing

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles held an absolute pardon session via Zoom on April 2, 2025, and tentatively granted absolute pardons to most applicants, denied one request and continued two cases for follow-up. Chairperson Jennifer Medina Zacagnini presided; board members Nancy Turner and Robert Cizauskas joined the hearing. The board heard 25 matters during the session.

The board’s decisions were announced at the time each case was heard. Chairperson Jennifer Medina Zacagnini reminded applicants that any pardon granted at the hearing is “tentatively granted” until the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification completes record checks and the board issues a certificate of pardon by mail. She also noted the board may instead award a certificate of employability or deny relief, depending on suitability and records checks.

Why it matters: an absolute pardon, if finalized, removes a person’s state criminal conviction record in Connecticut and can affect employment, licensing and housing opportunities. The board emphasized that a pardon is not a finding of innocence: as Zacagnini told applicants, a pardon “is neither a finding of innocence nor an exoneration.” Applicants were repeatedly reminded not to claim their record is erased until they receive the physical certificate.

Votes at a glance

- Julio DeNicola — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Matthew Brand — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Glenn Sebastian — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Angel Marcano Lozada — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 2–1; Commissioner Nancy Turner recorded a dissenting vote). - Jocelyn Rodriguez Jimenez — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Leola Crawford — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Diane Taylor — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Pearl Francis Sajike — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Julian Galindez — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Charles Molino — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Marisol (Maricel) Rodriguez — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Peter Alba — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Willby (Wilby) Martin — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 2–1; Commissioner Turner recorded a dissenting vote). - Edwin Vega Jr. — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Thomasina Evans — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Andre Aitken — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 2–1; Commissioner Turner recorded a dissenting vote). - William John Carter II — Pardon denied (vote to deny: 2–1; Commissioner Turner dissented from the denial). - Victor Contreras Narvaez — Continued to the May session on request (vote to continue: 3–0). - Ricky Cooper — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Alfred D’Aurena — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Jesse Heard — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Louis Panuzio — One-time continuance granted (vote to continue: 3–0). - Warren Sanford — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Brian Schermerhorn — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0). - Pedro Valentin — Absolute pardon granted (vote: 3–0).

What the board described and how it decided

Board members said they considered factors recorded in each file: the nature and seriousness of the offense, victim impact, the length of time since the offense, and efforts at rehabilitation. At the start of the session Parole Officer Ferraro explained procedural rules to the applicants, including that the board’s votes at the hearing are tentative and that record checks may take up to 10 weeks before erasure of public records is finalized.

Applicants addressed the panel in turn. Many applicants described long periods without further criminal activity, sustained employment or volunteer work, participation in treatment or educational programs, and family responsibilities. For example, applicant Julio DeNicola told the board he had “stayed out of trouble” and described ongoing volunteer work; the board noted his case dated back more than two decades and granted the pardon. Others, including Matthew Brand and Glenn Sebastian, described substance-use treatment history and community service before receiving favorable votes.

Where votes were split, commissioners identified reasons on the record. Commissioner Nancy Turner recorded several dissenting votes and repeatedly pressed applicants about factual accuracy in applications, remaining risk, or recent criminal activity. For example, Turner recorded the single dissent on Angel Marcano Lozada’s grant and explained on the record that she viewed aspects of that application as insufficiently addressed. In the lone denial (William John Carter II), the board cited the scope of the applicant’s prior convictions and recent conduct when deciding not to grant relief.

Victim input and continuances

Office of Victim Services staff participated by reporting victim input in several cases; in at least one hearing the board read a victim’s statement in favor of pardon. Two matters were continued at the applicants’ requests to allow additional preparation or documentation: Victor Contreras Narvaez and Louis Panuzio were continued to the next monthly session.

Next steps and timing

Any pardons announced at the hearing are tentatively granted and remain subject to completion of record checks. The board and staff reiterated that a pardon is final only after the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification clears records and the board mails a certificate of pardon. Applicants were told they should expect written notice by email within a week and that the board will not be responsible for third-party background-check services or internet postings that continue to show past convictions until records are formally erased.

Context and background

The Board of Pardons and Paroles hears pardon applications monthly and applies criteria required by state law and its own guidance. An absolute pardon erases a state conviction for most public purposes in Connecticut but is not an exoneration or a finding of innocence. The board may instead issue a certificate of employability when it believes an applicant is not suitable for an absolute pardon but is fit for employment.

Ending note

Chairperson Jennifer Medina Zacagnini closed the virtual session reminding applicants and the public that, as she said earlier during the meeting, “the granting of a pardon is neither a finding of innocence nor an exoneration” and that final clearance depends on the results of record checks conducted after the hearing.