Supreme Court 

 

 No. 2021-138-Appeal.

 (PM 18-2467)

State :

v. :

Cesare Decredico. :

 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision 

before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers 

are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme 

Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, 

Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or 

Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical 

or other formal errors in order that corrections may be 

made before the opinion is published.

 

April 4, 2023
- 1 -

Supreme Court 

No. 2021-138-Appeal.

(PM 18-2467)

State :

v. :

Cesare Decredico. :

 

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

O P I N I O N 

Justice Long, for the Court. The petitioner, Cesare Decredico (petitioner or 

Mr. Decredico), appeals from a final judgment of the Superior Court in favor of the

respondent, the State of Rhode Island (respondent or the state), which affirms a 

determination by the Rhode Island Sex Offender Board of Review (board) that Mr. 

Decredico poses a level II, moderate risk of reoffense.

1

 On appeal, Mr. Decredico 

argues that the trial justice erred in accepting the decision of the Superior Court 

magistrate determining: (1) that the board used a validated risk-assessment tool for 

noncontact offenders in deciding that he poses a level II risk to reoffend, and (2) that 

1 The record reveals that Mr. Decredico filed an objection to the determination of his 

classification level and sought review before a Superior Court magistrate, but the 

state initiated the petition in the Superior Court by filing a motion to affirm the 

board’s decision. We refer to Mr. Decredico as the petitioner to remain consistent 

with the Superior Court magistrate’s decision and order. 
- 2 -

the board used reasonable means to collect the information used in the STABLE2007 risk-assessment tool. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the 

judgment of the Superior Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. 

Facts and Procedural History

The record in this matter reveals the following undisputed facts. 

On April 28, 2015, Mr. Decredico pled guilty to one count of possession of child 

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) in the United States District

Court for the District of Rhode Island. The court sentenced him to a prison term of 

twelve months and one day, followed by five years of supervised release. Following 

his release from incarceration, the board interviewed Mr. Decredico and assessed his 

risk to reoffend using the STABLE-2007, a risk-assessment tool used to assess

recidivism risks in adult male sex offenders.

The developers of the STABLE-2007 designed it to evaluate and monitor 

changes in risk by reviewing “negative social influences, intimacy deficits, problems 

with self-regulation, attitudes tolerant of sexual crimes, lack of cooperation with 

supervision, and problems with general self-regulation.” Generally, when an 

individual receives a low score on the STABLE-2007, the results indicate that an 

offender poses a lesser risk to reoffend. Mr. Decredico scored four points out of 

twenty-six on the STABLE-2007, thereby placing him in the moderate risk category. 
- 3 -

The board ultimately determined that Mr. Decredico posed a moderate risk to 

reoffend and issued a risk-assessment report (report) recommending a level II risk 

classification. The report justified its recommendation based on several sources. It 

considered Mr. Decredico’s STABLE-2007 score, statements or any intentional 

refusal to provide statements, and his institutional record. The report also 

contemplated police reports, probation and parole supervision information, 

treatment information, Mr. Decredico’s conviction, and the facts underlying the 

offense. 

Regarding the offense itself, the report noted that the investigation leading to 

Mr. Decredico’s conviction uncovered that he possessed a large amount of child 

pornography of an extremely graphic nature. Specifically, the report detailed that 

the investigation uncovered over 2,600 images and 375 videos of child pornography 

in Mr. Decredico’s possession, including content depicting sexual acts involving 

toddlers as well as bestiality. The report also documented Mr. Decredico’s lack of 

a history of sexual aggression, prior criminal record, or known history of substance 

abuse. Further, the report considered his mental health history and sex offender 

treatment. Finally, the report discussed his familial support and lack of children in 

addition to his employment history and compliance with probation. 

The board notified Mr. Decredico of its classification decision and informed 

him of his obligation to register as a level II offender. Mr. Decredico filed a timely 
- 4 -

appeal of the board’s determination before a Superior Court magistrate, arguing that 

the board (1) improperly relied on the STABLE-2007 in determining his risk level,

and (2) failed to document a factual basis for scoring his problem-solving skills.

Ultimately, the magistrate found that Mr. Decredico was granted a meaningful

hearing and affirmed the board’s classification. In his decision, the magistrate noted 

that the board based its classification on several factors including those listed in Mr. 

Decredico’s risk-assessment report, his STABLE-2007 scores, and both the quantity 

and graphic nature of the pornography in his possession.

Mr. Decredico thereafter appealed the magistrate’s decision to a justice of the 

Superior Court; the trial justice conducted a de novo review of the magistrate’s 

proceedings pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-39.2(j) and Superior Court Rule of Practice 

2.9(h), and issued a written decision accepting the magistrate’s decision. Before the 

trial justice, Mr. Decredico reasserted his arguments that the board improperly relied 

on the STABLE-2007 in making its risk determination and that the board failed to 

use reasonable means to gather the information used in the STABLE-2007.

More specifically, Mr. Decredico argued that the coding manual for the 

STABLE-2007 states that it should not be used to estimate recidivism rates or to 

assign nominal risk categories for noncontact offenders. Mr. Decredico also argued 

that, inconsistent with the coding manual, the board failed to provide an adequate 

factual basis for its scoring determination in the “poor problem-solving skills” 
- 5 -

section of the STABLE-2007 and thereby erroneously allocated one point for that 

category. 

In response, the state argued that the STABLE-2007 qualifies as a valid riskassessment tool in Rhode Island and that the board permissibly uses it to determine 

the risk levels for noncontact offenders. With respect to noncontact offenders, the 

state also argued that the STABLE-2007’s coding manual states that it can be used 

for both therapeutic and counseling purposes. Additionally, the state argued that the

board employs a comprehensive approach in making this determination and that it 

can rely on factors outside of the STABLE-2007. 

The trial justice found that G.L. 1956 § 11-37.1-16 of the Sexual Offender 

Registration and Community Notification Act (the act) requires the board to use a 

validated risk-assessment tool, but does not prevent the board from considering other 

factors in reaching its risk determination. To support her conclusion, the trial justice 

noted that both the act and the board’s guidelines contain mandatory language 

directing the board to consider both actuarial test scores like the STABLE-2007 and 

outside information. Further, the trial justice found that the STABLE-2007 

comprises one factor in the board’s overall risk-determination analysis and, as long 

as the test is valid for some discrete purpose, the board may rely on it to reach a valid

determination. 
- 6 -

The Superior Court also rejected Mr. Decredico’s argument that the board 

misallocated a point on the STABLE-2007 for a lack of problem-solving skills. The 

trial justice found that Mr. Decredico’s argument failed to demonstrate that the board

employed unreasonable means to collect the information used in the STABLE-2007, 

as mandated by § 11-37.1-16(b)(2). The trial justice also considered the range of 

information the board relied on in making its determination and found that it used 

reasonable means to collect this information. Moreover, the trial justice noted Mr. 

Decredico’s failure to demonstrate that the board acted unreasonably in its collection 

of the information. 

Following the trial justice’s decision, Mr. Decredico filed a timely notice of

appeal to this Court. We consider whether the trial justice erred in accepting the 

decision of the magistrate that affirmed the board’s classification of Mr. Decredico, 

a noncontact offender, at a level II risk to reoffend.

Standard of Review

General Laws 1956 §§ 8-2-11.1(e) and 8-2-39(f) provide this Court with the 

authority to review final Superior Court decisions reviewing orders of magistrate 

proceedings. See DiCarlo v. State, 212 A.3d 1191, 1195 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State 

v. Rosenbaum, 114 A.3d 76, 80 (R.I. 2015)). On appeal, this Court will not disturb 

the factual findings of the trial justice unless she or he made clearly erroneous 
- 7 -

findings or misconceived or otherwise overlooked material evidence. See id. 

However, this Court uses a de novo standard when reviewing questions of law. Id. 

Discussion

Mr. Decredico argues that the trial justice erred in finding that the state 

presented a prima facie case sufficient to justify the board’s determination that he 

poses a level II, moderate risk to reoffend, because (1) the STABLE-2007 does not 

qualify as a validated risk-assessment tool for exclusively noncontact offenders, and

(2) the board did not use reasonable means to collect the information used in the 

STABLE-2007. We agree.

Section 11-37.1-16 of the Sexual Offender Registration and Community 

Notification Act provides the following in relevant part: 

“11-37.1-16. Application review — Burden of 

production and persuasion.

“(a) In any proceeding under this chapter, the state shall 

have the burden of going forward, which burden shall be 

satisfied by the presentation of a prima facie case that 

justifies the proposed level of and manner of notification.

“(b) For purposes of this section, ‘prima facie case’ means:

“(1) A validated risk assessment tool has been used 

to determine the risk of re-offense;

“(2) Reasonable means have been used to collect the 

information used in the validated assessment tool.

“(c) Upon presentation of a prima facie case, the court 

shall affirm the determination of the level and nature of the 
- 8 -

community notification, unless it is persuaded by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the determination on 

either the level of notification of the manner in which it is 

proposed to be accomplished is not in compliance with this 

chapter or the guidelines adopted pursuant to this chapter.” 

Section 11-37.1-16(a) establishes that, in proceedings to review board 

classification decisions, the state has a burden to produce evidence that supports the 

risk-level determination, as well as to persuade the court of the soundness and 

sufficiency of the evidence presented. See § 11-37.1-16(a). Section 11-37.1-16(b) 

outlines what suffices to establish a prima facie case creating a rebuttable 

presumption in support of the board’s decision.2 Section 11-37.1-16(b).

Specifically, the state may meet this burden by showing that the board used a 

validated risk-assessment tool to determine an individual’s risk of reoffense and by

further showing that the board used reasonable means to collect the information used 

in the risk-assessment tool itself. Id. If the state satisfies its burden, the court must 

affirm the board’s determination unless it concludes that the board’s determination 

violates the statutory scheme or related guidelines. Section 11-37.1-16(c).

Our examination of the record in this case reveals that the evidence presented 

by the state was not sufficient to support the board’s moderate risk classification. 

Not only does the STABLE-2007’s coding manual disclose that it is not a validated 

2 Black’s Law Dictionary defines prima facie as something that is “[s]ufficient to 

establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.” Black’s Law 

Dictionary 1441 (11th ed. 2019). 
- 9 -

risk-assessment tool for noncontact offenders, but it is also not clear from the record 

that the means used to collect and score Mr. Decredico’s problem-solving skills were 

reasonable in light of the guidance provided in the coding manual. 

STABLE-2007

Although the statute does not define a “validated risk assessment tool,” the 

plain language of the STABLE-2007 coding manual provides guidance on the

intended use for the STABLE-2007, as well as its limitations. The coding manual 

states that the test has been validated only for adult male sex offenders with one 

identifiable victim, also known as Category A, primarily contact offenders. By 

contrast, for other offenders, the manual states that the “STABLE-2007 should only 

be used as a clinical guide to identifying treatment needs and supervision targets. It 

should not be used to estimate recidivism rates or to assign nominal risk categories 

(e.g., low/moderate/high risk).” In fact, the manual further advises that evaluators 

should clearly indicate that the “STABLE-2007 has not been validated for the 

offender at-hand if the offender is not an adult male with a Category ‘A’ sexual 

offence somewhere on his record.” (Emphasis added.) 

In her decision, the trial justice found that the STABLE-2007 serves as a valid 

risk-assessment tool for measuring both the treatment needs and supervision targets 

of noncontact offenders and that this alone qualifies it as a validated risk-assessment 

tool under § 11-37.1-16(b)(1). This finding overlooks the plain language of the 
- 10 -

STABLE-2007 coding manual and the limitations on its use for offenders like Mr. 

Decredico. It is undisputed that he pled guilty to one count of possession of child 

pornography; and further, that the investigation revealed that he had a copious 

amount of graphic and offensive images in his possession. His crime was, without 

a doubt, serious and disturbing. However, it was not a Category A sexual offense, 

and the STABLE-2007 has not been validated for noncontact offenders such as Mr. 

Decredico. 

The state nevertheless points to this Court’s prior characterization of the 

STABLE-2007 as a validated risk-assessment tool in DiCarlo v. State, 212 A.3d 

1191 (R.I. 2019), and urges this Court to uphold the trial court’s determination that 

the state met its evidentiary burden in this case. See DiCarlo, 212 A.3d at 1193. 

However, we do not read our description of the STABLE-2007 in DiCarlo as 

broadly as the state would have us do so here. Critically, the petitioner in DiCarlo 

was convicted of three counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. Id. 

Child molestation, as opposed to possession of child pornography, is categorized as 

a contact offense. We therefore decline the state’s invitation to read DiCarlo as a 

wholesale approval of the STABLE-2007’s validity for all offenders.

The state additionally focuses on Mr. Decredico’s failure to identify an 

alternative test, but this also misses the mark. The state bears the burden of 

production and persuasion under § 11-37.1-16. As in any adversarial proceeding to 
- 11 -

which the state is a party, it is the state’s obligation, in the first instance, to evaluate 

the weight and sufficiency of the evidence that it believes supports its case. In 

proceedings to review board classification decisions, that means that the state must 

consider the weight and sufficiency of evidence justifying the proposed 

classification level.

3 Upon introducing that evidence, the state must attempt to 

persuade the decision-maker accordingly. It is only once the state successfully 

meets this burden that the court may affirm the board’s determination. 

Reasonable Means

With respect to the means used to collect the information used in the 

STABLE-2007, the coding manual provides extensive guidance regarding how to 

gather information relevant to assessing and scoring an individual’s problem-solving 

skills. Specifically, the coding manual suggests that evaluators ask questions 

directed toward how an offender solves problems across multiple domains such as 

work, family, financial, social, recreational, and health. When scoring problemsolving skills, evaluators should consider how an offender identifies problems, 

generates and analyzes possible solutions, chooses a course of action, and reviews

3 See R. Karl Hanson, What Do We Know About Sex Offender Risk Assessment?, 4 

Psych. Pub. Pol’y & L. 50, 53 (1998) (“[T]he research on actuarial measures for 

sexual offense recidivism has yet to demonstrate a clear superiority to the best 

clinical assessment methods. * * * As research advances, actuarial measures will 

surpass clinical assessments in their ability to predict sexual recidivism, but until 

such superiority has been demonstrated, carefully conducted clinical assessment can 

still provide useful information, especially to guide intervention.”).
- 12 -

outcomes. The STABLE-2007 tally sheet at issue in this case gives no indication of 

what information the board collected or relied upon in allocating one point to Mr. 

Decredico’s problem-solving skills. The explanatory note on the tally sheet simply 

states, “[s]ome poorly considered decisions but open to correction when difficulties 

are pointed out.” 

This conclusory explanatory note parrots the language of the scoring rubric 

without providing a factual basis for the additional point allocated. There is nothing 

stated to support a finding that the board engaged in any dialogue with Mr. Decredico

about how he has identified past problems; generated and analyzed possible 

solutions; chosen his course of action; and reviewed outcomes in decision-making. 

There is also nothing to suggest what his poorly considered decisions were, or how 

the board decided that he is open to correction. 

We reject the state’s contention that this Court may accept the board’s 

determination because, as in State v. Dennis, 29 A.3d 445 (R.I. 2011), “it 

nevertheless properly relied upon a range of materials to formulate its decision.”

Dennis, 29 A.3d at 452. It is critically important for the board to conduct thorough 

fact-finding and to document its findings transparently. As we discussed in State v. 

Germane, 971 A.2d 555 (R.I. 2009), the state’s classification of sex offenders 

burdens a liberty interest implicating the right to procedural due process. Germane, 

971 A.2d at 578. Given the serious and long-lasting implications of registering as a 
- 13 -

sex offender, the board’s determination must have a basis in a well-supported 

assessment of the offender’s risk to reoffend. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial justice erred in upholding the 

magistrate’s decision that affirmed the board’s classification of Mr. Decredico at a 

level II risk to reoffend. The determination that the evidence in the record justifies 

the proposed level of and manner of notification was clearly erroneous. It overlooks 

the plain language of the STABLE-2007 coding manual, both with regard to its 

limitations for use with noncontact offenders, as well as its guidance concerning the 

collection of information relevant to assessing and scoring an individual’s problemsolving skills. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and 

remand the record to the Superior Court with instructions that it remand this matter 

to the board for a new determination of the level of and manner of Mr. Decredico’s 

risk in accordance with this decision.
SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

Licht Judicial Complex

250 Benefit Street

Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case State v. Cesare Decredico.

Case Number No. 2021-138-Appeal.

(PM 18-2467)

Date Opinion Filed April 4, 2023

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and 

Long, JJ.

Written By Associate Justice Melissa A. Long 

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Petitioner: 

Brett V. Beaubien, Esq.

For Respondent:

Christopher R. Bush

Department of Attorney General