RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0819-16T3

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.M.,

SVP-143-00.

______________________________

Submitted March 27, 2019 – Decided May 9, 2019

Before Judges Koblitz and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-143-00.

R.M., appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Victoria R. Ply, 

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant R.M. appeals from the August 29, 2016 order that continued his 

commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) in Avenel pursuant to the New 

Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. 

Appellant disputes the testimony presented by the State's experts and contends

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0819-16T3

the State failed to show he had a mental disability and would likely reoffend if 

released. After a review of appellant's arguments in light of the record and 

applicable legal principles, we disagree and affirm.

Appellant is a fifty-five-year-old man with a significant history of 

committing sexually violent acts. In 1985, he was convicted on two counts of 

sexual assault of a seventeen-year-old girl and subsequently sentenced to a 

prison term.

In 1995, appellant was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual 

assault, one count of aggravated criminal sexual contact, and three counts of 

endangering the welfare of a child. The charges stemmed from the allegations 

of three girls, aged eight, thirteen, and fourteen. Appellant pleaded guilty to two 

counts of endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to prison for five 

years, with a one-year parole disqualification period, and community 

supervision for life.

Following the expiration of his prison term, appellant was committed to 

the Northern Regional Unit, now the STU, pursuant to the SVPA. Since then, 

he has had three review hearings — including this one — to determine the 

continuation of his civil commitment. We affirmed the two previous judgments 

of commitment. In re Civil Commitment of R.M., No. A-0686-01 (App. Div. 
3

A-0819-16T3

Feb. 25, 2004); In re Civil Commitment of R.M., No. A-3247-02 (App. Div. 

Aug. 31, 2004).

Appellant has refused sex-offender treatment while in the NRU/STU. He 

does not think he meets the criteria for treatment and believes the program is 

manipulative. 

During the commitment hearing at issue, the State presented reports and 

testimony from two experts – Howard Gilman, M.D. and Paul Dudek, Ph.D.

Although appellant successfully petitioned the court to receive funding from the 

public defender's office for an expert witness, he did not present one. Instead, 

he represented himself, and in addition to his own testimony, he produced 

several lay witnesses. 

Dr. Gilman, a psychiatrist, testified that appellant continued to be at a high

risk for sexual reoffending. He diagnosed appellant with pedophilia as well as 

a personality disorder with narcissistic and antisocial features. Dr. Gilman 

advised that appellant required treatment and his personality disorder was 

preventing him from accepting the required therapies.

In discussing the STATIC-99R, an actuarial test used to measure an 

individual's risk of sexual reoffending, Dr. Gilman stated he used appellant's 
4

A-0819-16T3

score of six1as a factor in his overall analysis, but it was not the single 

determinative factor. Appellant cross-examined Dr. Gilman extensively on his 

opinions and the STATIC-99R.

Dr. Dudek testified as the member of the team at the STU that prepared 

appellant's annual treatment progress review. He also diagnosed appellant with

a pedophilic disorder and a personality disorder, as well as hebephilia.

2 Because 

appellant refused treatment, Dr. Dudek stated appellant had not "evidenced any 

understanding of the offense cycle and related dynamics, ha[d] not developed a 

meaningful relapse prevention plan, and ha[d] not expressed any remorse or 

accountability for his offenses." 

Dr. Dudek advised that appellant's disorders and deviant arousal patterns 

would not spontaneously remit. Furthermore, his unwillingness to engage with 

treatment was symptomatic of his underlying personality disorder. Dr. Dudek 

concluded that appellant was highly likely to commit acts of sexual violence if 

released. He opined that appellant could lower his risk, but his "refusal to 

 

1 A score of six predicts appellant has a high risk of re-offense.

2 Hebephilia is a sexual interest in young adolescents (eleven to fourteen years).

 HELEN GAVIN, CRIMINOLOGICAL AND FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 155 (2014).
5

A-0819-16T3

consistently engage in treatment . . . remains his largest obstacle in making 

progress and reducing his dynamic risk to re-offend." 

On August 24, 2016, the trial judge rendered a thorough oral decision in 

which he reviewed the history of appellant's commitment, his previous offenses, 

the evidence adduced at earlier hearings that led to the continuation of 

commitment, and the current expert reports regarding his mental health and their 

recommendations for continued commitment. He found both the State's experts 

and the defense witnesses credible.

The judge concluded that 

He is a very intelligent man, and . . . he's 

cooperating at the treatment orientation level, not 

causing any problems, but he's not engaged in 

treatment. And he, of course, has the intelligence to 

engage in treatment and to go through the treatment 

regimen here at the STU if he decided to do that, but 

he's -- he's oppositional to doing that and refuses to do 

it, or he feels that he shouldn't be here.

. . . .

And . . . he has no expertise on his side to in any 

way refute . . . the uncontroverted opinion of Dr. 

Gilman and Dr. Dudek, so -- . . . I find that everything 

supports the -- the opinions by the experts. 

. . . . 

I still find that there's clear and convincing evidence 

that [appellant] has been convicted of -- of sexual 
6

A-0819-16T3

violent offenses, clear and convincing evidence that he 

continues to suffer from a mental abnormality or 

personality disorder, does not spontaneously remit, 

affects him emotionally, cognitively, volitionally, 

there's serious difficulty controlling his sexual violent 

behavior and predisposed to sexual violence, and highly 

likely to sexually reoffend, presently highly likely to 

sexually reoffend by clear and convincing evidence.

Under order of August 24, 2016, the judge continued appellant's commitment to 

the SVU.

Our review after a trial court's decision following a commitment hearing 

is extremely narrow. See In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 

(App. Div. 2001) (citing State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282, 311 (1978)). The trial 

court's decision "should be accorded 'utmost deference' and modified only where 

the record reveals a clear abuse of discretion." Ibid. (quoting Fields, 77 N.J. at 

311). "The judges who hear SVPA cases generally are specialists and their 

expertise in the subject is entitled to special deference." In re Civil Commitment 

of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 174 (2014) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). In assessing the credibility of experts, "[a] trial judge is 'not required 

to accept all or any part of [an] expert opinion.'" Ibid. (alteration in the original)

(quoting In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31, 61 (1996)). "The ultimate determination is a 

'legal one, not a medical one, even though it is guided by medical expert 

testimony.'" Ibid. (quoting D.C., 146 N.J. at 59).
7

A-0819-16T3

Under the SVPA, the State must establish three elements by clear and 

convincing evidence to involuntarily commit a person. The State must show:

(1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually 

violent offense; (2) that he suffers from a mental 

abnormality or personality disorder; and (3) that as a 

result of his psychiatric abnormality or disorder, "it is 

highly likely that the individual will not control his or 

her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend." 

[Id. at 173 (citations omitted) (first citing N.J.S.A. 

30:4-27.26; then quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 

173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)).]

On appeal, appellant contends the State's experts did not have a solid 

foundation for their opinions, and the State did not prove he had a mental 

disability and would likely reoffend if released. Applying our standard of 

review and the applicable law, we are satisfied the expert testimony supports the 

judge's factual findings and his conclusion that appellant continues to be a 

danger to the community and that he should remain involuntarily committed. 

Our review of the record demonstrates that the trial judge appropriately 

determined appellant satisfies all three elements to warrant civil commitment.

At the hearing, the State presented two experts who detailed appellant's 

past sexual offending history, his refusal to engage in treatment, and his high 

likelihood of reoffending. The experts' diagnoses of pedophilia and an antisocial 

personality disorder were uncontroverted. It was also undisputed that these 
8

A-0819-16T3

mental abnormalities would not spontaneously remit and could only be 

mitigated by way of treatment. The judge found Dr. Gilman's and Dudek's

opinions credible that appellant's disorder and past behavior demonstrated he 

was highly likely to engage in acts of sexual violence unless he was confined.

Having reviewed the record, we find no basis to disturb the trial court's

factual and legal conclusions. We, therefore, affirm substantially for the reasons 

expressed in the judge's well-reasoned oral decision as to the need for appellant's 

continued commitment.

Affirmed.