For
Plaintiff: Bethany A. Laskowski, Esq.
For
Defendant: Michael J. Zarrella, Esq.
DECISION
LANPHEAR, J.
Paul
LaFrance (Petitioner) brings this appeal from an October 30,
2018 decision of the Drug Court Magistrate (Magistrate)
upholding his Risk Level II sex offender classification order
issued by the Rhode Island Sex Offender Board of Review (the
Board). Petitioner argues that he should have been classified
as a Risk Level I sex offender. Jurisdiction is pursuant to
G.L. 1956 § 8-2-39.2(j). For the reasons set forth
herein, the Court affirms the decision of the Magistrate.
I
Facts
and Travel
On
October 7, 2014, Chariho High School officials became aware
of a possible inappropriate relationship between a
sixteen-year-old female student and Petitioner. See
Richmond Police Narrative. Petitioner's victim, a former
student of Petitioner, was interviewed multiple times by the
Richmond Police Department and eventually disclosed that she
and Petitioner had been engaging in a sexual relationship
over the past months, when she was fifteen years old.
Id. The relationship began two days before the
previous school year ended when the two started talking on
skype.com and kik.com. Id. The victim told Police
that the conversations quickly turned sexual. Id. A
subsequent search of Petitioner's phone revealed hundreds
of messages between the parties as well as sexually explicit
photos of a female juvenile. Id. The victim also
disclosed that in July of that summer, Petitioner transported
the victim in his car to a nearby pond where they engaged in
oral sex. Id. Then in August of that summer,
Petitioner again transported the victim to his house, where
they engaged in oral sex. Id.
On
December 12, 2015, Petitioner pled nolo contendere
to two counts of third-degree sexual assault and one count of
indecent solicitation of a child. He received a five-year
sentence at the ACI with two years to serve and three years
suspended with probation. While at the ACI, Petitioner was
notified by the Board that they determined he was a
"moderate" risk to reoffend and was therefore
labeled a Risk Level II sex offender. See Board
Letter. In making its decision, the Board considered the
Petitioner's scores from three tests: the STATIC-99R, the
STATIC-2002R and the STABLE-2007. The STATIC-99R and the
STATIC-2002R scores found Petitioner to be a below average
risk to reoffend and the STABLE-2007 score found Petitioner
to be a moderate risk to reoffend. However, the Board also
examined other factors such as the details of the offense,
the details of the arrest, significant crime considerations,
victim selection, prior history, criminal history, and
Petitioner's support systems. The Board also noted that
Petitioner would blame his victim at times, stating she
initiated oral sex in July and texted him in August asking to
meet. Petitioner appealed the Board's decision to a
Superior Court magistrate and a hearing was held on October
30, 2018. In support of his appeal, Petitioner submitted the
report and offered testimony of Peter Loss, a social worker
who specializes in working with sex offenders. Mr. Loss
stated that Petitioner would be "more than manageable on
a Level I rating;" however, the Magistrate found other
language in Mr. Loss's report troubling. Magistrate's
Tr. 17, Oct. 30, 2018. Specifically, Petitioner referred to
the incident as a "mistake" and not a crime;
Petitioner placed responsibility on his victim; and
Petitioner took advantage of a young woman who was
"struggling with life and sexuality" and therefore
vulnerable. Id. at 18-19.
In a
thorough, well-reasoned decision, the Magistrate affirmed the
findings of the Board. Petitioner appealed to this Court.
II
Standard
Section
8-2-39.2(j) of the Rhode Island General Laws governs the
Superior Court review of a magistrate's decisions and
provides:
"A party aggrieved by an order entered by the drug court
magistrate shall be entitled to a review of the order by a
justice of the superior court. Unless otherwise provided in
the rules of procedure of the court, such review shall be on
the record and appellate in nature. The superior court shall,
by rules of procedure, establish procedures for reviews of
orders entered by a drug court magistrate, and for
...