Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles hears dozens of cases; majority of applicants receive pardons
Loading...
Summary
At its Feb. 4, 2026 absolute pardon session the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles heard dozens of applicants, weighed victim statements and supervision histories, and granted a majority of the applications while denying or continuing others for reasons including recent supervision, repetitive conduct, or state’s-attorney objections.
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles held its absolute pardon session by Zoom on Feb. 4, 2026, hearing more than three dozen applicants and issuing immediate rulings on the record.
"The people of the state of Connecticut have vested the Board of Pardons and Paroles with extraordinary power to grant pardons," Chair Robert Cizauskas told applicants at the hearing, emphasizing that a pardon is not a finding of innocence.
Board members heard brief statements from applicants and their attorneys, victim-impact statements read by the Office of Victim Services and detailed questioning from panelists about rehabilitation, community service, sobriety and any intervening arrests. Parole Officer Swanson reminded applicants that any pardons granted at the hearing were tentative and subject to record checks and clearance by the Connecticut State Bureau of Identification.
Several applicants described sustained work and service after their convictions. Ray Victor Boyd, who said he spent nearly 30 years in the Connecticut Department of Correction and since release had run a reentry program and opened a two‑family home for returning citizens, told the panel he was motivated "to remove the barriers that I've seen so many men are faced with" and to provide stability for others. Boyd's pardon was granted by the panel.
Victim statements played a decisive role in a number of cases. In the hearing on Steven Bautista, the Office of Victim Services read two written statements describing long-term harm; panelists discussed those impacts before voting to grant Bautista an absolute pardon, while noting the power of the victims’ remarks. In other matters — notably the application of Marisol Garcia — the state's attorney's written objection and the repetitive nature of prior offenses led the panel to deny the pardon.
Votes were recorded on the public record for each applicant. Some grants were unanimous; others passed by majority where at least one panel member recorded a dissenting vote. A small set of cases were continued when an applicant was unavailable or when panel members requested more information.
What happens next: Pardons granted at the hearing are tentative. Swanson told applicants that final certificates will not be issued until state record checks are complete; the board estimates up to 10 weeks for the CT State Bureau of Identification to clear records, and letters notifying applicants are to be sent by email within a week. Results are posted to the board's website within 48 hours of the hearing.
Votes at a glance (selected outcomes): Marcos Villasas Riviera — granted; Ray Boyd — granted; Steven Bautista — granted; Samuel Powell — denied; Dale Paraiso — granted; Scott Walton — granted; Mario Nunes — granted; Christian Tardiff — denied; Everett Garcia — granted; Lorenzo Hemingway — granted; Ryan Nurme — granted; Ivan Ruiz Garcia — granted (majority); Terrell Watkins — granted; Mark Berry — granted; Brian Busk — granted; Timothy Cook — granted; Shontay (Shontay Terron) Davis — granted; Marisol Garcia — denied; Robert Gauterman — granted; Lawrence Magnano — denied; Julio Medina — granted; William Miller — granted; Jerome Parkins — granted; Schneiden/Schneider Pierre — granted; Dominic Ciretta — granted; Michael Swistek — granted; Eric Trenchard — granted; Roy Tyson — granted.
Panel members explicitly cited the following common factors when explaining decisions: seriousness and recency of the offense, whether the applicant had completed supervision, evidence of sustained rehabilitation or community service, victim impact and any written objections from the state's attorney's office. The board consistently distinguished between "discussion" (questions and applicant statements), "direction" (requests that an applicant take more community steps), and formal "decision" (the recorded motion and vote). The hearing adjourned after the final motions and a reminder from the chair about the record‑check process.
The board will post the official docket outcomes and the tentative decisions on its website. Applicants whose pardons were denied were informed they may reapply in the future, and several panelists urged denied applicants to continue community service and to demonstrate a longer period of stable conduct before reapplying.
