IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF W.W. (SVP-667-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2019 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5239-16T5
IN THE MATTER OF THE
CIVIL COMMITMENT OF
W.W., SVP-667-13.
_________________________
Submitted February 6, 2019 – Decided September 3, 2019
Before Judges Nugent and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-667-13.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant W.W. (Alison Stanton Perrone, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Caroline
Gargione, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant W.W., a sexually violent predator, appeals from a June 27, 2017
order that continued his commitment to the Department of Correction's Special
Treatment Unit (STU) following his first review hearing. On appeal, W.W.
argues a single point:
POINT ONE
THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT W.W.
CONTINUED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR SVP
COMMITMENT.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A judge committed W.W. to the STU in February 2013, pursuant to the
Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4–27.24 to–27.38. The
events that culminated in his commitment are recounted in our decision that
affirmed the judgment that committed him to the STU and need not be repeated
here. In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of W.W., No. A-3281-12 (April
18, 2016), certif. denied, 327 N.J. 353 (2016). The judgment mandated a review
hearing within one year.
The review hearing took place on June 27, 2017. The State presented the
testimony of a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Defendant did not testify, and
he presented no witnesses. Following the hearing, the judge found the State had
clearly and convincingly proven W.W. continued to be a sexually violent
predator in need of civil commitment in a secure facility for control, care and
treatment.
A-5239-16T5
2
The psychiatrist recounted W.W.'s history of sexual offenses and noted
incarceration had not deterred him, as W.W. twice committed sexual offenses
within two months of his release from prison. The doctor diagnosed W.W. with
other specific paraphilic disorder to coercion, which means W.W. has an arousal
to force women to submit to his sexual demands for his sexual gratification. This
predisposes him to reoffend if released. The psychiatrist also diagnosed W.W.
with antisocial personality disorder. He explained that the diagnoses addressed
W.W.'s lack of volitional control—"an important component of his mental
abnormality as well as his cognitive distortions." In addition to these diagnoses,
the doctor also noted W.W. had a history of alcohol and cannabis abuse.
The psychiatrist concluded W.W. had not undergone sufficient treatment
to mitigate his risk of reoffending. Static-99R results placed W.W. in a category
of men who were well above average risk to sexually reoffend. In short, the
doctor found that W.W. had demonstrated a great inability to be in the
community and to control his sexual aggression, neither of which had been
mitigated by treatment. Considering W.W.'s history of sexual offenses,
undeterred by incarceration and unmitigated by treatment, the psychiatrist was
of the opinion that W.W.'s risk to reoffend was highly likely if he were placed
in any setting less restrictive than the STU.
A-5239-16T5
3
The psychologist, a member of the STU's Treatment Progress Review
Committee, had annually reviewed W.W.'s progress. Significantly, she noted
that during the past year in the STU, W.W. had not passed "core sex offender
specific modules" such as relapse prevention. W.W. told her he had deliberately
failed one of the modules. He had also admitted that he wanted to cause
emotional pain and suffering to his victims and it "felt good and happy to him
to hurt others."
The psychologist's diagnoses of W.W. were similar to those of the
psychiatrist. She explained how his disorders enhanced his risk for sexual
reoffending. After discussing and explaining the conditions and disorders that
predisposed W.W. to reoffending, as confirmed through testing, evaluations, and
W.W.'s non-progress in treatment, the psychologist concluded W.W. is at high
risk to reoffend.
Based on the testimony of the two witnesses, the judge found the State
had clearly and convincingly proven the criteria for continuing W.W.'s
commitment.
To have a person committed under the SVPA, the State must prove by
clear and convincing evidence three elements: the person has been convicted of
a sexually violent offense; the person suffers from a mental abnormality or
A-5239-16T5
4
personality disorder; and, as a result of such mental abnormality or personality
disorder, "'it is highly likely that the [person] will not control his or her sexually
violent behavior and will reoffend.'" In re Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152,
173 (2014) (quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)). 1
A person who has been involuntarily committed under the SVPA is
entitled to annual review hearings to determine whether he or she remains in
need of commitment despite treatment. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35; see also 30:4-
27.32(a). Here, following a review hearing, the judge determined that the State
had met its burden of proving the criteria for continuing W.W.'s commitment by
clear and convincing evidence.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by the judge in the oral
opinion he delivered at the conclusion of the review hearing. W.W.'s sole
argument to the contrary is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
1
The term "sexually violent offense" refers to offenses enumerated in the
SVPA, including aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal
sexual contact, criminal sexual contact, and "any offense for which the court
makes a specific finding on the record that, based on the circumstances of the
case, the person's offense should be considered a sexually violent offense."
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. The term "'mental abnormality' means a mental condition
that affects a person's emotional, cognitive or volitional capacity in a manner
that predisposes that person to commit acts of sexual violence." Ibid.
A-5239-16T5
5
Affirmed.
A-5239-16T5
6