### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0210- 22

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF C.M., SVP- 109

- 00.

___________________________

Argued December 5, 2023

– Decided January 2, 2024 Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. SVP- 109

- 00. Catherine F. Reid, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Catherine F. Reid, on the brief s ). Stephen J. Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attor ney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephen J. Slocum, on the brief).

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 0210

- 22

C.M. appeals from the September 8, 2022, Law Divisi on order continuing

GPS 1 monitoring as a condition of his release from the Special Treatment Unit (STU), the secure custodial facility designated for the treatment of persons in need of involuntary civil commitment pursuant to th e Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. We dism iss the appeal as moot. C.M. was initially committed under the SVPA in 2000 . His commitment was continued after yearly reviews and affirmed in unpublished opinions

. See In re Civil Commitment of C.M., No. A- 3821 -05 (App. Div. May 30, 2007); In re Civil Commitment of C.H.M., No. A- 6137 -02 (App. Div. June 28, 2004). In our prior opinion, we described C.M.'s predicate of fense as a 1987 "robbery and aggravated sexual assault of an adult female,"

during which C.M. invaded the victim's home, grabbe d her neck, demanded money, ripped off her clothes an d tied her up. He then forced his penis into the vic tim's mouth and attempted to penetrate her vaginally and anally. He then forced her into the kitchen where he attempted to stab her with a dull knife. The victi m received two stab wounds before managing to escape. [In re Civil Commitment of C.M., slip op. at 5-6 .] C.M.'s prior history also included "the rape of a t wenty-four-year-old woman."

Id. at 6.

1 Global Positioning System (GPS).3 A- 0210

- 22

Following an annual review hearing, C.M. was condit ionally discharged from the STU pursuant to a consent order entered on July 3, 2019, effective July 16, 2019 . "The [SVPA] sets up a regime of annual reviews o f a committed

individual to assess his or her need for continued commitment or conditional discharge." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 , 120 (2002) (citing N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35). A person who is eligible for conditional discharge under the statute must no longer "be likely to engage in acts of sexual violence because the person is amenable to and highly likely to comp ly with a plan to facilitate the person's adjustment and reintegration into the communi ty " and "the court may order that the person be conditionally discharg ed in accordance with such plan." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32 (c)(1 ). C.M.'s discharge plan included several conditions, including being subjected to GPS monitoring. See In re Civil Commi tment of E.D., 353 N.J. Super. 450, 456- 57 (App. Div. 2002) ("To allow a person who has been committed as a sexually violent predator to be released with out conditions may, in certain circumstances, place the safety and secu rity of the public at risk" but

the "risk of harm to society may be reduced by the per son's mandatory compliance with conditions upon release.").4 A- 0210

- 22

On September 8, 2022, the trial court conducted a d ischarge review hearing pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32(c)(2), whic h requir es a review hearing within six months of the imposition of discharge co nditions. During the hearing, C.M. sought the removal of GPS monitoring. In supp ort, C.M. asserted that since his discharge from the STU, he had not reoffe nded, had been compliant with required treatment, and had had no suspicious GPS trails. Following the hearing, the judge entered an order with an accompa nying oral opinion continuing GPS monitoring along with the previously imposed conditions. This appeal followed. On appeal, C.M. only challenges the continued impos ition of GPS monitoring, argu ing the judge's "evaluation of the evidence was not co nducted against the standard outlined in the SVPA for conti nued imposition of restraints" and the resulting order was inconsistent with the f ederal and state constitutions. At oral argument, we were informed that at a subsequent discharge review hearing conducted on July 24, 2023, an order was en tered discontinuing GPS monitoring. At our request, the parties submitted the attendant order. Because the only issue raised on appeal is continu ing GPS monitoring as a condition of C.M.'s conditional discharge, the appeal is now moo t.5 A- 0210

- 22

"Courts normally will not decide issues when a cont roversy no longer exists, and the disputed issues have become moot." Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp. , 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010). "A ca se is technically moot when the original issue presented has been resolved , at least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation." Ibid. (quot ing DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993) (Pollock, J., concurring)). Stated differently, "an issue is moot when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered , can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." Greenfield v. N.J. D ep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006) (internal quotation ma rks omitted) (quoting N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. State Dep't of Treasu ry, 6 N.J. Tax 575, 582 (Tax 1984)). We will consider an issue notwithstanding its mootn ess if it "presents a

que stion that is both important to the public and like ly to recur." Clymer v. Summit Bancorp., 171 N.J. 57, 65-66 (2002); s ee In re Civil Commitment of E.D., 183 N.J. 536, 540, 552 (2005) (electing "to address a challenge to the procedures used to revoke a committee's conditional discharge and to recommit under the [SVPA ]" because the issues "may reoccur" but finding other issues raised by the committee moot). We elect to dismiss this appeal as moot. Appeal Dismissed.