RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5239-16T5

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF 

W.W., SVP-667-13.

_________________________

Submitted February 6, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Mawla.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-667-13.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant W.W. (Alison Stanton Perrone, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Caroline 

Gargione, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant W.W., a sexually violent predator, appeals from a June 27, 2017 

order that continued his commitment to the Department of Correction's Special 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 3, 2019
2

A-5239-16T5

Treatment Unit (STU) following his first review hearing. On appeal, W.W. 

argues a single point: 

POINT ONE

THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND 

CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT W.W. 

CONTINUED TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR SVP 

COMMITMENT.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

A judge committed W.W. to the STU in February 2013, pursuant to the 

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

events that culminated in his commitment are recounted in our decision that 

affirmed the judgment that committed him to the STU and need not be repeated 

here. In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of W.W., No. A-3281-12 (April 

18, 2016), certif. denied, 327 N.J. 353 (2016). The judgment mandated a review 

hearing within one year. 

The review hearing took place on June 27, 2017. The State presented the 

testimony of a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Defendant did not testify, and 

he presented no witnesses. Following the hearing, the judge found the State had

clearly and convincingly proven W.W. continued to be a sexually violent 

predator in need of civil commitment in a secure facility for control, care and 

treatment. 
3

A-5239-16T5

The psychiatrist recounted W.W.'s history of sexual offenses and noted 

incarceration had not deterred him, as W.W. twice committed sexual offenses 

within two months of his release from prison. The doctor diagnosed W.W. with 

other specific paraphilic disorder to coercion, which means W.W. has an arousal 

to force women to submit to his sexual demands for his sexual gratification. This

predisposes him to reoffend if released. The psychiatrist also diagnosed W.W. 

with antisocial personality disorder. He explained that the diagnoses addressed 

W.W.'s lack of volitional control—"an important component of his mental 

abnormality as well as his cognitive distortions." In addition to these diagnoses, 

the doctor also noted W.W. had a history of alcohol and cannabis abuse. 

The psychiatrist concluded W.W. had not undergone sufficient treatment 

to mitigate his risk of reoffending. Static-99R results placed W.W. in a category 

of men who were well above average risk to sexually reoffend. In short, the 

doctor found that W.W. had demonstrated a great inability to be in the 

community and to control his sexual aggression, neither of which had been 

mitigated by treatment. Considering W.W.'s history of sexual offenses, 

undeterred by incarceration and unmitigated by treatment, the psychiatrist was 

of the opinion that W.W.'s risk to reoffend was highly likely if he were placed 

in any setting less restrictive than the STU. 
4

A-5239-16T5

The psychologist, a member of the STU's Treatment Progress Review 

Committee, had annually reviewed W.W.'s progress. Significantly, she noted 

that during the past year in the STU, W.W. had not passed "core sex offender 

specific modules" such as relapse prevention. W.W. told her he had deliberately 

failed one of the modules. He had also admitted that he wanted to cause 

emotional pain and suffering to his victims and it "felt good and happy to him 

to hurt others." 

The psychologist's diagnoses of W.W. were similar to those of the 

psychiatrist. She explained how his disorders enhanced his risk for sexual 

reoffending. After discussing and explaining the conditions and disorders that 

predisposed W.W. to reoffending, as confirmed through testing, evaluations, and 

W.W.'s non-progress in treatment, the psychologist concluded W.W. is at high 

risk to reoffend.

Based on the testimony of the two witnesses, the judge found the State 

had clearly and convincingly proven the criteria for continuing W.W.'s 

commitment. 

To have a person committed under the SVPA, the State must prove by 

clear and convincing evidence three elements: the person has been convicted of 

a sexually violent offense; the person suffers from a mental abnormality or 
5

A-5239-16T5

personality disorder; and, as a result of such mental abnormality or personality 

disorder, "'it is highly likely that the [person] will not control his or her sexually 

violent behavior and will reoffend.'" In re Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 

173 (2014) (quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)).1 

A person who has been involuntarily committed under the SVPA is 

entitled to annual review hearings to determine whether he or she remains in 

need of commitment despite treatment. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35; see also 30:4-

27.32(a). Here, following a review hearing, the judge determined that the State 

had met its burden of proving the criteria for continuing W.W.'s commitment by 

clear and convincing evidence. 

We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by the judge in the oral 

opinion he delivered at the conclusion of the review hearing. W.W.'s sole 

argument to the contrary is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 

 

1 The term "sexually violent offense" refers to offenses enumerated in the 

SVPA, including aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal 

sexual contact, criminal sexual contact, and "any offense for which the court 

makes a specific finding on the record that, based on the circumstances of the 

case, the person's offense should be considered a sexually violent offense." 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. The term "'mental abnormality' means a mental condition 

that affects a person's emotional, cognitive or volitional capacity in a manner 

that predisposes that person to commit acts of sexual violence." Ibid.
6

A-5239-16T5

Affirmed.