IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.T., SVP-573-10 (SVP-573-10, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2020 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4263-18T3
IN THE MATTER OF THE
CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.T.,
SVP-573-10.
Submitted March 17, 2020 – Decided March 27. 2020
Before Judges Fisher and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. SVP-573-10.
R.T., appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Stephen J. Slocum, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
R.T. appeals pro se a Law Division order that denied his motion to change
his status in the Special Treatment Unit (STU),1 and an order that denied
1
The STU is a secure facility designated for the custody, care and treatment of
sexually violent predators pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act
(SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38.
reconsideration. On appeal, R.T. raises the following points for our
consideration:
POINT I
THE CIVIL COMMITMENT COURT ERRED AND
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION FOR NOT ORDERING
REMOVING [SIC] R.T. FROM TREATMENT
REFUSAL STATUS, [MODIFIED ACTIVITIES
PROGRAM] (MAP) PLACEMENT WHEN IT
DENIED R.T.'S MOTION FOR TREATMENT AND
TRANSFER TO GENERAL POPULATION AND/OR
FOR DISCHARGE.
POINT II
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
RELYING ON THE PRISON SETTINGS, AND THE
STU IS A CIVIL FACILITY [SIC] VIOLATED R.T.'S
RIGHTS UNDER THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATOR ACT AND UNDER N.J.A.C. 10:35
RESULTING [SIC] R.T.'S INABILITY TO RECEIVE
TREATMENT WHEN HIS EXPERT'S REPORT
STATED THAT HE DID NOT POSES [SIC] A
"DANGER TO HIMSELF [SIC] TO OTHERS."
In his reply brief, R.T. further contends:
THE RESPONDENT'S LETTER BRIEF ON THE
MERITS SHOULD BE REJECTED AS A MATTER
OF LAW BASED ON APPELLATE BRIEF,
APPENDIX AND THE FEDERAL COURT'S 10/31/19
OPINION AND ORDER.
We have reviewed the record in light of these contentions, and conclude
they lack sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion.
A-4263-18T3
2
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm all issues R.T. raised before Judge Phillip Lewis
Paley for the reasons set forth in his well-reasoned written decisions that
accompanied the orders under review. We add only the following brief remarks.
We are thoroughly familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding
R.T.'s commitment to the STU, having previously affirmed the judgment
committing him to the unit. See IMO Civil Commitment of R.T., No. A-2521-
13 (App. Div. Feb. 19, 2016) (slip op. at 1-17). In the present matter, R.T.
sought various relief in the Law Division, but he did not challenge his continued
commitment.
Pertinent to this appeal, R.T. requested removal from MAP status – which
he claimed interfered with his religious rights – and relocation from the South
Wing to another wing of the STU. As Judge Paley aptly recognized, however,
R.T.'s request was jurisdictionally defective for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies and seek review in our court from that determination.
See, e.g., Hospital Ctr. at Orange v. Guhl, 331 N.J. Super. 322, 329 (App. Div.
2000) (recognizing the Appellate Division's exclusive jurisdiction of agency
decisions). Nonetheless, in his initial decision and on reconsideration, the judge
cogently rejected each argument on the merits. We discern no basis to dis turb
those determinations.
A-4263-18T3
3
Finally, R.T.'s newly-minted argument that he is no longer a sexually
violent predator under the SVPA was not raised before the trial court and, as
such, we decline to address it on appeal. See Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v.
Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012). We simply note such contention is better
addressed at an annual review hearing. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35.
Affirmed.
A-4263-18T3
4