Gonzalez Vigo, Luis F v. Junta De Libertad Bajo Palabra
KLRA202500043
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Mar 24, 2025Background
- Luis F. González Vigo, an inmate serving a 30-year, 3-month sentence, applied for parole (libertad bajo palabra) in Puerto Rico.
- After a May 2023 hearing, the Parole Board denied González Vigo’s request, outlining concerns about his release plan, particularly regarding residence proximity to the victim, employment, and supervision.
- The Board required an alternative residence and further investigation, specifically to ensure that proposed arrangements met regulatory requirements for distance from the victim and other release conditions.
- González Vigo sought judicial review, arguing the Board’s decision was arbitrary, lacked proper notice regarding the 30-mile exclusion zone requirement, and improperly applied standards for residence, employment, and the role/location of his proposed advisor.
- The Parole Board maintained its denial was based on regulatory criteria: the lack of a viable release plan, the community and victim’s opposition, and the applicant’s failure to meet exclusion zone requirements.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the Board’s actions were reasonable, supported by the record, and compliant with applicable law and regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of proposed residence | Residence denial was arbitrary, exclusion zone not satisfied | Residence too close to victim; owner opposed residency | Board’s decision reasonable, supported by evidence |
| Viability/location of proposed advisor/friend | Advisor’s location shouldn’t disqualify parole | Advisor resided in same town as victim, contrary to rules | Board’s application of rule was proper |
| Employment offer location | Denial on job location was arbitrary | Jobs offered were too close to victim’s residence | Board’s concern warranted under regulations |
| Notice of 30-mile exclusion requirement | Was not properly notified of distance rule | Rules in effect and applied to all applicants | Board applied regulation correctly; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- López Rivera v. Adm. de Corrección, 174 DPR 247 (P.R. 2008) (affirmed that agencies must act within statutory and due process bounds)
- Benítez Nieves v. ELA, 202 DPR 818 (P.R. 2019) (parole is a qualified privilege, not a right; Board has broad discretion)
- Maldonado Elías v. González Rivera, 118 DPR 260 (P.R. 1987) (clarifies nature of parole and Board authority)
- Transporte Sonell, LLC. v. Junta de Subastas, 2024 TSPR 82, 214 DPR _ (presumption of agency regularity in decision-making)
- OCS v. Universal, 187 DPR 164 (P.R. 2012) (deference to agency expertise within their statutory remit)