### 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, a ttorney f or a ppellant W.W. ( Alison Stanton Perrone, Designated Counsel, o n t he b rief). Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Caroline Gargi o ne, 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predator, appeals from a June 27, 2017 order that continued his commitment to the Department of Correction's Special NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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, 20192 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, w e affirm. A judge committed W.W. to the STU in February 2013 , pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predat or 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 j udgment 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 j udgment mandated a review heari ng 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 n ot deterred him, as W.W. twice committed sexual offenses within two months of his releas e 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 de mands 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 di agnoses addressed W.W.'s lack of volitional control

— "an important compone nt 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 mitigat e 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 h e 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. Af

ter 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 test imony of the two witnesses, the judge found the State had clearly and convincingly proven the criteria for continu ing W.W.'s commitment.
T o 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 or5 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 C ommitment 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 heari ng, 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 c onclusion 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 o r volitional capacity in a manner that predisposes that person to commit acts of sexual violence." Ibid.6 A

- 5239

- 16T5

Affirmed.