IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF T.F. (SVP-380-04, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0439-17T5
IN THE MATTER OF THE
CIVIL COMMITMENT OF T.F.,
SVP-380-04.
_____________________________
Submitted February 12, 2019 – Decided February 25, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-380-04.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant T.F. (Nancy C. Hayes, Designated Counsel,
on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Victoria R. Ply, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
T.F., who was originally civilly committed in 2004, appeals an August 10,
2017 order that continued his commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU)
pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -
27.35. In deferring to the trial judge's fact findings, we affirm.
A criminal defendant, who has been convicted of a predicate offense to
the SVPA, may be subject to an involuntary civil commitment when found to be
suffering from "a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the
person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure
facility for control, care and treatment." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. Annual review
hearings are required to determine whether that person remains in need of
commitment despite treatment. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32(a).
To warrant commitment, or the continuation of commitment, the State
must prove that "the individual has serious difficulty in controlling sexually
harmful behavior such that it is highly likely that he or she will not control his
or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend." In re Commitment of W.Z.,
173 N.J. 109, 132 (2002). See also In re Commitment of G.G.N., 372 N.J. Super.
42, 46-47 (App. Div. 2004). In that setting, the trial court must address the
individual's "present serious difficulty with control over dangerous sexual
behavior," and the State must establish "by clear and convincing evidence . . .
that it is highly likely that the person . . . will reoffend." W.Z., 173 N.J. at 132-
A-0439-17T5
2
34. See also In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599, 611 (App.
Div. 2003). The State met its burden here.
The record reveals that T.F. is now sixty-six years old. Between 1984 and
1991, he committed sex crimes against minors in North Carolina, Virginia and
New Jersey. He was civilly committed to the STU in 2004, where he has since
resided. His commitment has been reviewed on numerous occasions in the past,
and we have affirmed all those prior orders challenged on appeal. See, e.g., In
re Civil Commitment of T.M.F., No. A-2247-10 (App. Div. Apr. 29, 2011); In
re Civil Commitment of T.M.F., No. A-2479-05 (App. Div. Feb. 23, 2007).
At the August 10, 2017, review hearing that generated the order
challenged here, the trial judge heard the testimony of the State's expert, Dr.
Michael Kunz, and the testimony of T.F.; the parties stipulated to the judge's
consideration of the expert report of a psychologist for the State, Dr. Eugene
Dunaev, without the need for his testimony. This evidence revealed that T.F.
had not participated in any group session since being committed to the STU, nor
did he consent to an interview by Dr. Kunz for purposes of the August 2017
hearing. T.F. testified that his religious beliefs precluded or excused his
participation.
A-0439-17T5
3
Based upon the factual record presented, the judge found that the State
clearly and convincingly established those elements necessary to continue T.F.'s
commitment. His findings were "substantially influenced by [the] opportunity
to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the case, which a reviewing
court cannot enjoy." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (quoting State
v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). Consequently, our standard of review is
narrow; we will defer to a trial judge's findings when supported by evidence in
the record, "give utmost deference to the commitment finding[,] and reverse
only for a clear abuse of discretion." In re Civil Commitment of A.E.F., 377
N.J. Super. 473, 493 (App. Div. 2005); see also In re Civil Commitment of V.A.,
357 N.J. Super. 55, 63 (App. Div. 2003); In re Civil Commitment of J.P., 339
N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001). After carefully reviewing the record on
appeal, we find no abuse of discretion and no reason to question the judge's fact
findings. Instead, we conclude that all the judge's findings are supported by
testimony he was entitled to credit, that these findings are entitled to our
deference, and that the judge did not abuse his discretion in continuing the
commitment of T.F. pursuant to the SVPA.
A-0439-17T5
4
We reject T.F.'s argument that the State failed to sustain its burden and
we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Richard F. Wells in
his thorough and well-reasoned oral decision.
Affirmed.
A-0439-17T5
5