ST. CROIX — The Virgin Islands Parole Board recently granted parole to 20 inmates — including 12 who were convicted in cases involving the killing of another person and one convicted of first-degree aggravated rape of an eight-year-old.
Meanwhile, four inmates convicted of murder and rape remain unable to have their parole applications heard because of Governor Albert Bryan Jr.’s legal challenge to the territory’s non-medical geriatric parole law.
During hearings held June 22 through July 7, the Parole Board reviewed 36 parole applications, granting parole to 20 inmates, denying parole to 14, and noting that two applicants withdrew their requests. Those granted parole included Maurice Richardson, convicted of first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter; Jalani Williams, convicted of first-degree murder; Chris Carty, Jibri Roberts, Ralph Titre, Adisa Bertrand, Akeem Corraspe, and Kishawn Smith, all convicted of second-degree murder; and Raskoemo Archibald, Akil Santiago, Amari Krigger, and Voshon Vallarde, all convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Thomas T.W. Hightree, who was convicted of first-degree aggravated rape, was also granted parole. The board also granted parole to seven other inmates: Delroy Thomas, convicted of attempted retaliation against a witness; Edictor Esquillin, first-degree assault; Manuel Davis, first- and third-degree assault; Daren Hodge, second-degree domestic violence; Daniel Nicholas, unauthorized possession of a firearm; Hansel Castillo, first-degree robbery; and Eugene Roberts, attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, unauthorized possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of ammunition.
By contrast, the Parole Board remains barred from even considering parole applications filed by Warren Ballentine, Beaumont Gereau, Meral Smith, and Tydel John under the Virgin Islands’ non-medical geriatric parole law. Ballentine, Gereau, and Smith were each sentenced in 1973 to eight consecutive life sentences for first-degree murder," while John was sentenced in 2014 to 50 years in prison for aggravated rape. All four are over age 65 and applied for non-medical geriatric parole after the Legislature enacted Act No. 8791, which Bryan signed into law in January 2024. According to court filings, each applicant was recommended for release by the Bureau of Corrections director before the board scheduled hearings on their applications.
Before the board could consider the applications, however, the governor filed a lawsuit May 30 seeking a declaratory judgment that applying the non-medical geriatric parole law to inmates sentenced before the statute took effect is unconstitutional. On June 3, 2025, Superior Court Judge Alphonso Andrews Jr. granted the governor’s request for a temporary restraining order barring Parole Board members Dennis Howell, Chesley Roebuck, Bentley Thomas, and Attorney General Gordon Rhea, in their official capacities, from considering any parole applications.
READ MORE: Judge grants temporary restraining order to postpone VI Parole Board hearings due to lack of quorum
Although the order was later modified to allow the board to resume hearing other parole cases, it continues to prohibit the board from considering applications submitted under the non-medical geriatric parole statute — Virgin Islands Code, Title 5, Section 4607 — pending a final court ruling.
The governor’s lawsuit also included a quorum issue which was later rectified with his nomination of Roy Moorehead Jr. to the Parole Board. Now, the lawsuit centers on whether the 2024 law may be applied to inmates who were sentenced before it took effect. Ballentine, Gereau, and Smith were each sentenced in 1973 to eight consecutive life terms for first-degree murder following the 1972 Fountain Valley Golf Course shooting that left eight people dead. Under the law in effect when they were sentenced, they would not become eligible for parole until 2053 unless the board, with executive approval, established an earlier date. Two other men were also convicted in the attack: Ishmael LaBeet, who escaped to Cuba in 1984 after hijacking a plane during a federal transfer, and Raphael Joseph, who was pardoned in 1992 by then-Governor Alexander Farrelly and died in 1998.
John, a former elementary school teacher, was sentenced in June 2014 to a 50-year term for aggravated rape alongside concurrent 15-year terms for unlawful sexual contact involving six female students. Under the law at the time of his sentencing, his standard parole eligibility date would be 2029.
Senator Franklin Johnson, primary sponsor of Bill No. 35-0045, which became Act No. 8791, said his intent in drafting the legislation was for the law to apply retroactively to inmates sentenced prior to its enactment.
“What the retroactive would have done is, anyone that was sentenced prior to the laws changing that was sentenced to a life sentence without parole, any kind of parole, will now be eligible for the geriatric and the medical parole,” he said. “So that was a clear intent that would have saved the government millions of dollars.”
In July 2025, the governor moved for summary judgment, arguing Act No. 8791 cannot apply retroactively because lawmakers failed to include explicit language authorizing retroactive application. The governor also contends that applying the law to pre-2024 sentences violates the separation of powers by altering judicially imposed sentences and stripping the governor’s statutory authority over early parole. The motion was initially filed by former Assistant Attorney General Christopher Timmons, who took office as a Superior Court magistrate judge on February 22. The Department of Justice has since reassigned the case to Assistant Attorney General Julie Beberman.
The Parole Board members and the inmate defendants reject the claims argued by the governor.
The board members contend the governor’s suit is premature because no geriatric parole applications have been acted upon, that the executive branch suffered no irreparable harm, and that delaying hearings hurts other applicants. They also argue Act No. 8791 constitutionally established a new parole category without usurping judicial or executive authority. Attorney Pedro Williams, who filed the motion, has since been appointed to the Superior Court bench in the St. Thomas/St. John District.
Attorney Vincent Colianni II, representing the four inmates, separately argues in a motion for summary judgment that parole alters only how a sentence is served — not the sentence itself. Colianni maintains that applying the 2024 statute to current inmates is not impermissibly retroactive because it creates a new administrative process rather than altering prior judicial rulings.
Bryan responded in August 2025, urging the court to deny the inmate defendants’ motion and reiterating that Virgin Islands law presumes statutes apply prospectively unless retroactivity is explicitly stated. He also reiterated that applying the law retroactively would improperly alter the legal consequences of sentences imposed years earlier while diminishing the governor’s constitutional authority over early parole.
Until the court rules on the pending summary judgment motions, the amended restraining order stays in effect and prevents the Parole Board from considering the four inmates’ applications, or any other inmates sentenced prior to the 2024 law’s enactment who apply for non-medical geriatric parole. The last docket entry in the case was on March 10, when Beberman filed her notice of appearance for the government.
Whether an inmate is eligible to apply for parole is determined by the terms of his/her sentence and the requirements of the Virgin Islands parole statute — Virgin Islands Code, Title 5, Sections 4601-4606, according to the BOC. The fact that an inmate’s name may appear on the list of those deemed eligible to apply for parole does not guarantee that parole will be granted or that a parole hearing for that inmate will take place as scheduled. Even if eligible to apply for parole, no inmate may be granted parole unless he/she is recommended for parole by the director of the Bureau of Corrections. Also, the date of an inmate’s release, after being granted parole, is dependent on compliance with a number of conditions, including approval by the State Council of Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Adult Offenders when necessary. Ensuring compliance with these conditions may delay an inmate’s release.
