Court Opinion

ID: 9900781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 15:05:20.111198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:17.935307
License: Public Domain

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                     APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                     DOCKET NO. A-1887-21

IN THE MATTER OF THE
CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.T.,
SVP-573-10.

                Submitted October 31, 2023 – Decided November 20, 2023

                Before Judges Rose and Smith.

                On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. SVP-573-10.

                R.T., appellant pro se.

                Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
                General, of counsel; Stephen Slocum, Deputy Attorney
                General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

       R.T. is a resident of the Special Treatment Unit (STU), the secure

custodial facility designated for the treatment of persons in need of commitment

under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38.
Self-represented, he appeals from a February 9, 2022 Law Division judgment

continuing his commitment.       Distilled to their essence, R.T.'s overlapping

arguments challenge the trial judge's credibility and factual findings. Having

considered R.T.'s contentions in view of the record and the governing legal

principles, we affirm.

      We need not recount in substantial detail R.T.'s extensive criminal history,

which we set forth in our opinion affirming the January 15, 2014 initial judgment

of commitment. In re Civ. Commitment of R.T., No. A-2521-13 (App. Div. Feb.

19, 2016) (slip op. at 1-5). In summary, R.T.'s criminal history includes several

out-of-state arrests and convictions for sexually related offenses, commencing

at age sixteen with a rape charge and subsequent adjudication in Pennsylvania.

Id. at 2. As an adult R.T. was convicted of sexually related offenses in California

in 1984 and 1999, and Pennsylvania in 2005. Id. at 2, 5. R.T. was also convicted

and charged with multiple non-sexual offenses in California, Pennsylvania, and

Nevada, including failure to register as a sex offender, vehicular manslaughter,

assault, fraud, drug, and weapons offenses. Id. at 2.

      Eventually R.T. was extradited to New Jersey on a 1997 warrant for non-

sexually related offenses. Id. at 5. After R.T. pled guilty to third-degree theft,

he was sentenced to a four-year prison term. Ibid. On May 3, 2010, the State

                                                                             A-1887-21
                                        2
filed a petition for civil commitment under the SVPA. Ibid. R.T. thereafter

challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, contending "he had never been charged

with or convicted of any sexual offense in New Jersey." Id. at 6. Following

protracted litigation concerning jurisdiction and other issues, the trial court held

a hearing and thereafter entered the initial January 15, 2014 judgment,

committing R.T. to the STU. 1 Id. at 9-10.

      After we affirmed R.T.'s initial commitment, his residency at the STU was

marked by years of litigation concerning his placement. See e.g., In re Civ.

Commitment of R.T., No. A-4263-18 (App. Div. Mar. 27, 2020) (slip op. at 3)

(affirming the trial court's denial of R.T.'s motion to change his treatment refusal

status in the STU).2 In our decision, we noted "R.T. sought various relief in the

Law Division, but he did not challenge his continued commitment." Id. at 3.

1
  As we stated in our decision affirming R.T.'s initial commitment, "[t]he SVPA
'applies whether the offense was committed in New Jersey . . . or another State.'"
R.T., slip op. at 13 (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Civ.
Commitment of P.Z.H., 377 N.J. Super. 458, 463-64 (App. Div. 2005)). See
also N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26.
2
   R.T. also filed a civil rights complaint in federal court against certain STU
staff, a public defender, and a deputy attorney general asserting, among other
claims, that several psychologists "retaliated against him for filing the
grievances by prolonging his treatment." [R.T.] v. Main, No. 20-2846, 2021
U.S. App. LEXIS 20273, at *2 (3d Cir. July 8, 2021) (summarily affirming the
dismissal of most claims and judgment for defendants on the remaining claims).
                                                                              A-1887-21
                                         3
      Ultimately, the present review hearing was conducted by Judge Bradford

M. Bury over the course of seven non-consecutive days between September 15,

2021, and January 25, 2022.      The State presented the expert testimony of

psychiatrist Dr. Nicole Dorio, D.O., and psychologist Dr. Paul Dudek, Ph.D., a

member of the STU's Treatment Progress Review Committee (TPRC). R.T.

represented himself at the hearing with the assistance of standby counsel. R.T.

did not testify but called his own expert in psychology, Dr. Ronald Silikovitz,

Ph.D., and the STU's medical director, Dr. Sandra Connolly, who testified as a

fact witness. The judge also considered the "plethora of documents admitted

into evidence" by both parties, including the experts' reports, the STU's

treatment records, and R.T.'s self-published book.

      Immediately following the parties' closing statements, Judge Bury issued

a preliminary decision from the bench, announcing his intention to continue

R.T.'s commitment at the STU with "a short review period." Shortly thereafter,

the judge issued a comprehensive oral decision squarely addressing the evidence

adduced at the hearing in view of the governing law. Citing the testimony of

each witness seriatim, the judge made detailed credibility and factual findings.

      Pertinent to the issues raised on appeal, the judge noted Dr. Dorio had

interviewed R.T. four times prior to the hearing and testified about his lengthy

                                                                           A-1887-21
                                       4
criminal history. But the judge was not fully persuaded by Dr. Dorio's opinion

that because R.T. had been placed on treatment refusal status multiple times and

failed to engage adequately with his treatment to enable him to progress, R.T.

"[wa]s essentially an untreated sex offender." Judge Bury explained:

            I found [Dr. Dorio] to be a credible witness with regard
            to the ultimate conclusion of whether or not [R.T.] is
            presently highly likely to sexually reoffend, that her
            factual foundation in support of the same is clearly
            present in the record, and also her opinion that he's not
            highly likely to comply with terms and conditions of a
            conditional discharge plan now. . . .

            I did not find [Dr. Dorio] credible in certain areas with
            regard to giving [R.T.] his due, and his appropriate
            credit, . . . and complimenting him, so-to-speak, with
            regard to his significant areas of progress, although he
            still has a ways to go.

      Turning to Dr. Dudek's testimony, the judge noted the doctor diagnosed

R.T. with "antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic features . . . other

specified paraphilic disorder non-consent, and sexual sadism disorder."

Crediting Dr. Dudek's testimony, the judge was persuaded by his "ultimate

conclusions . . . that [R.T.] is presently highly likely to sexually reoffend if he

were to be discharged into [the] community, and that he is not highly likely to

comply with his terms and conditions of treatment."

                                                                             A-1887-21
                                        5
      Conversely, Judge Bury wholly discredited Dr. Silikovitz's testimony,

highlighting R.T.'s religious commitment is not a relevant factor regarding a

sexual predator's likelihood to reoffend.       The judge stated:      "I find Dr.

Silikovitz's opinion has to be rejected wholesale because he doesn't address . . .

the core requirement[] under the statute" of whether the individual has mental

abnormality or personality disorders.

      Finally, the judge noted R.T. called Dr. Connolly "to testify about his

medical chart and his colorectal cancer treatments" to demonstrate "he is unable

to obtain an erection as a result of the surgical procedure that occurred."

Although the judge found Dr. Connolly's testimony credible, he concluded "her

testimony and the medical records do not support by a clear and convincing

evidence standard that [R.T.], in fact, is not able to obtain an erection." Instead,

the judge noted as R.T. continues treatment, the STU's diagnostic testing –

including an "arousal polygraph" – will determine whether he "is able to become

aroused."

      Concluding R.T.'s commitment should continue, Judge Bury found "clear

and convincing evidence that [R.T.] suffers from a mental abnormality or

personality disorder that affects him emotionally, cognitively, or volitionally to

such a degree that he is predisposed to commit acts of sexual violence." Further,

                                                                              A-1887-21
                                         6
"[i]f released, [R.T.] would have serious difficulty controlling his sexually

violent behavior to such a degree that he will be highly likely within the

reasonably foreseeable future to engage in acts of sexual violence."

      In reaching his decision, the judge considered the possibility of a

conditional discharge with conditions "to reduce [R.T.]'s dangerousness below

the level of committability." However, the judge found neither R.T. nor any of

the experts presented any realistic conditions during the hearing. Nonetheless,

the judge recognized R.T. was "promoted to Phase 2" after he was removed from

treatment refusal status. In view of R.T.'s progress, the judge "order[ed] that by

the next expedited review hearing date, so long as he continues to . . .

meaningfully engage in treatment, he shall move to Phase 3A." The judge

elaborated:

              [R.T.] offended repeatedly, both as a juvenile and then
              as an adult, even after having been sanctioned. So, the
              propensity for him to reoffend is high.

                    And hopefully, as he continues to progress
              throughout his treatment, he's going to be able to bring
              that down to below the standard of highly likely, and
              become less than highly likely.

                    But at the moment, there's really no rational basis
              or means upon which the court at this juncture could
              fashion a discharge plan with sufficient conditions in
              order to ensure the safety of the community and to
              prevent [R.T.] from reoffending.

                                                                            A-1887-21
                                         7
                   But the court is confident if . . . [R.T.], continues
            on his positive upward trajectory with regard to his
            treatment, he will be able to succeed one day and to be
            discharged safely into the community where he will not
            be at risk . . . .

The judge issued a memorializing order continuing R.T.'s commitment and

scheduling the next review hearing on September 7, 2022. 3                 This appeal

followed.

      Well-established principles guide our review.           A person who has

committed a sexually violent offense may be confined only if suffering from an

abnormality that causes serious difficulty in controlling sexually violent

behavior such that commission of a sexually violent offense is highly likely

without confinement "in a secure facility for control, care and treatment." In re

Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 120, 127 (2002) (citing N.J.S.A. 30:4-

27.26). Annual review hearings to determine whether the person remains in

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

N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32(a). An order of continued commitment under the SVPA,

like an initial order, must be based on "clear and convincing evidence that an

3
  We have been advised that R.T. waived the September 7, 2022 review hearing
pending this appeal and, at his request, no subsequent review hearings have
occurred.

                                                                                A-1887-21
                                         8
individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, suffers from a

mental abnormality or personality disorder, and presently has serious difficulty

controlling harmful sexually violent behavior such that it is highly likely the

individual will reoffend" if not committed. In re Civ. Commitment of G.G.N.,

372 N.J. Super. 42, 46-47 (App. Div. 2004) (citing W.Z., 173 N.J. at 120, 132);

see also In re Civ. Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 173 (2014); N.J.S.A. 30:4-

27.26; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35. "[O]nce the legal standard for

commitment no longer exists, the committee is subject to release." In re Civ.

Commitment of E.D., 353 N.J. Super. 450, 455 (App. Div. 2002); see also W.Z.,

173 N.J. at 133; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35.

      "The scope of appellate review of a commitment determination is

extremely narrow." R.F., 217 N.J. at 174 (quoting In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31, 58

(1996)). Because trial judges who hear these matters "are specialists in the

[SVPA], . . . we must give their expertise in the subject special deference." In

re Civ. Commitment of R.Z.B., 392 N.J. Super. 22, 36 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting

In re Civ. Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218, 226 (App. Div. 2007)).

Modification is only proper on appeal when "the record reveals a clear abuse of

discretion." Ibid. "The appropriate inquiry is to canvass the . . . expert testimony

in the record and determine whether the [commitment judge's] findings were

                                                                              A-1887-21
                                         9
clearly erroneous." Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting D.C., 146 N.J. at 58-

59). We will not disturb the judge's findings if they are supported by sufficient

credible evidence in the record. See R.F., 217 N.J. at 175.

      We are satisfied from our review of the record that Judge Bury's findings

are supported by substantial credible evidence. Based on the expert testimony

he deemed credible, the judge determined there existed clear and convincing

evidence that R.T.'s disorders and past behavior demonstrated he was highly

likely to engage in acts of sexual violence unless confined. Recognizing R.T.'s

progress, the judge scheduled an expedited hearing to afford R.T. the

opportunity to demonstrate compliance with treatment with an anticipated goal

of increasing to Phase 3A. We have been offered no principled reason for

second-guessing the experienced judge's findings and conclusions.

      To the extent not addressed, R.T.'s remaining contentions lack sufficient

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-1887-21
                                       10