The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals upheld the denial of parole for Luis R. García Figueroa, who is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence. This decision affects García Figueroa, who has been seeking to be granted parole after various denials. The ruling underscores the court's support for the decisions made by the Board of Parole.
García Figueroa, currently confined at the Guayama 500 Correctional Institution, is serving a sentence of 29 years and 2 months for violating protection orders and child abuse. He has been classified as a minimum custody inmate since September 29, 2015, and is expected to complete his sentence by March 16, 2032. His attempts to gain parole have been met with resistance from the Board of Parole, which cited his criminal history and lack of a viable release plan as reasons for their decision.
The dispute began when García Figueroa filed a request for parole, which was denied by the Board of Parole on February 26, 2026. The Board stated that he was not a first-time offender and lacked a suitable home and job plan, as his proposed residence was too close to the victim. Following this denial, García Figueroa appealed to the Court of Appeals, claiming that the Board had discriminated against him and violated his right to due process.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals reviewed the Board's decision and found it to be reasonable and lawful. The court noted, "The Board is the entity with the expertise and knowledge necessary to determine the eligibility of an inmate for parole." This statement reflects the court's deference to the Board's judgment and its recognition of the Board's authority in such matters.
The court confirmed that the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence, including García Figueroa's criminal history and the requirements outlined in the regulations governing parole eligibility. The ruling emphasized that the Board must consider various factors, including the inmate's rehabilitation progress and the safety of the community.
García Figueroa's argument that the parole regulations discriminated against him was also rejected by the court. The Board had established a requirement that any proposed residence must be located at least 15 miles away from the victim's home to ensure safety. The court found that this requirement applied equally to all inmates and did not constitute discrimination.
The ruling has significant implications for García Figueroa and others in similar situations. It reinforces the authority of the Board of Parole in making decisions regarding parole eligibility and highlights the importance of a structured release plan. The decision also serves as a reminder that inmates with prior offenses may face additional scrutiny when seeking parole.
Moving forward, García Figueroa may seek to appeal this decision, although the court's ruling provides strong support for the Board's authority and decision-making process. There are no related cases pending that could influence this matter further.