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 briefs).

Stephen J. Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, argued 

the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney 

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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 parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0210-22

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

GPS1 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 the Sexually Violent Predator 

Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. We dismiss 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was continued after yearly reviews and affirmed in unpublished opinions.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 offense as a 1987 "robbery and 

aggravated sexual assault of an adult female," 

during which C.M. invaded the victim's home, grabbed 

her neck, demanded money, ripped off her clothes and 

tied her up. He then forced his penis into the victim'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 victim 

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 twenty-four-year-old woman." 

Id. at 6.

1

 Global Positioning System (GPS). 
3 A-0210-22

Following an annual review hearing, C.M. was conditionally 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 of 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 comply with a plan to facilitate 

the person's adjustment and reintegration into the community" and "the court 

may order that the person be conditionally discharged 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 Commitment 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 without conditions may, 

in certain circumstances, place the safety and security of the public at risk" but 

the "risk of harm to society may be reduced by the person's mandatory 

compliance with conditions upon release."). 
4 A-0210-22

On September 8, 2022, the trial court conducted a discharge review 

hearing pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32(c)(2), which requires a review hearing 

within six months of the imposition of discharge conditions. During the hearing, 

C.M. sought the removal of GPS monitoring. In support, C.M. asserted that 

since his discharge from the STU, he had not reoffended, had been compliant 

with required treatment, and had had no suspicious GPS trails. Following the 

hearing, the judge entered an order with an accompanying oral opinion 

continuing GPS monitoring along with the previously imposed conditions. This 

appeal followed. 

On appeal, C.M. only challenges the continued imposition of GPS 

monitoring, arguing the judge's "evaluation of the evidence was not conducted 

against the standard outlined in the SVPA for continued imposition of restraints" 

and the resulting order was inconsistent with the federal and state constitutions. 

At oral argument, we were informed that at a subsequent discharge review 

hearing conducted on July 24, 2023, an order was entered discontinuing GPS 

monitoring. At our request, the parties submitted the attendant order. Because 

the only issue raised on appeal is continuing GPS monitoring as a condition of 

C.M.'s conditional discharge, the appeal is now moot. 
5 A-0210-22

"Courts normally will not decide issues when a controversy no longer 

exists, and the disputed issues have become moot." Betancourt v. Trinitas 

Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010). "A case is technically moot 

when the original issue presented has been resolved, at least concerning the 

parties who initiated the litigation." Ibid. (quoting 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. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 

254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting N.Y. 

Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. State Dep't of Treasury, 6 N.J. Tax 575, 582 

(Tax 1984)). 

We will consider an issue notwithstanding its mootness if it "presents a 

question that is both important to the public and likely to recur." Clymer v. 

Summit Bancorp., 171 N.J. 57, 65-66 (2002); see 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.