IN THE MATTER CIVIL COMMITMENT OF G.L.M.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6691-04T26691-04T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF

G.L.M.

__________________________________________________________

 

Argued January 11, 2006 - Decided February 7, 2006

Before Judges Wecker and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Essex County, SVP 237-02.

Patrick Madden, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,

argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith

Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Madden,

of counsel).

Lisa Marie Albano, Deputy Attorney General,

argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey,

Attorney General, attorney; Ms. Albano, of

counsel).

PER CURIAM

G.L.M. appeals from an order entered on August 5, 2005, continuing his involuntary civil commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. We affirm.

In our prior opinion of June 21, 2004, affirming an order of involuntary commitment dated December 4, 2002, we noted:

[G.L.M.] was convicted in March 1981 of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and second-degree attempted sexual assault and sentenced to Avenel for a fifteen-year term. In 1992, defendant was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and was again imprisoned for a lengthy period of time. In March 2002, he was committed under the SVPA, which commitment has been continued by orders to date.

The SVPA's definition of "sexually violent predator" includes an individual "who has been convicted . . . of a sexually violent offense . . . and suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for control, care and treatment." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. Courts are authorized to order the involuntary civil commitment of an individual under the SVPA when the State has proven "by clear and convincing evidence that the person needs continued involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator . . . ." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32(a). The Court has explained the standard for involuntary commitment under the SVPA as follows:

To be committed under the SVPA an individual must be proven to be a threat to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of his or her engaging in sexually violent acts . . . . [T]he State must prove that threat by demonstrating that the individual has serious difficulty in controlling sexually harmful behavior such that it is highly likely that he or she will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend.

Those findings . . . require an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable future. No more specific finding concerning precisely when an individual will recidivate need be made by the trial court. Commitment is based on the individual's danger to self and others because of his or her present serious difficulty with control over dangerous sexual behavior.

[In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 132-33 (2002).]

Three witnesses testified at the hearings on July 28, 2005, and August 5, 2005. Dr. Michael R. McAllister, a psychiatrist, testified regarding his psychiatric evaluation of G.L.M. on July 26, 2005, and his written report dated July 27, 2005; Dr. Eleni Marcantonis, a psychologist, testified concerning her preparation of the Treatment Progress Review Committee (TPRC) annual review report dated November 8, 2004; and Dr. Janet R. Brice-Baker, a psychologist, testified on behalf of G.L.M.

Judge Serena Perretti's oral decision on August 5, 2005, included the following:

[T]he T.P.R.C. report gave as its number one recommendation to [G.L.M.] that he address his substance abuse problems and that he take the substance abuse module. The issue of the respondent's substance abuse, which was the subject of prior proceedings, in addition to other matters, is mentioned here because it is a continuing serious problem.

. . . .

Dr. Marcantonis discussed and explained the sources used by the T.P.R.C. in reaching its recommendation. . . . She explained that Phase-3 is the core phase of treatment at the S.T.U. And was satisfied along with the other members of the committee that the respondent had been making moderate, steady progress, that he seemed motivated, he showed good attendance and active participation, was remorseful and had completed an autobiography.

She did point out a number of important open issues: the respondent's substance abuse, his lack of complete understanding of his offense cycle, and his failure to articulate in group a relapse prevention plan.

. . . .

In the opinion of Dr. McAllister, the current risk of recidivism remains high as a result of the respondent's mental condition of paraphilia and the personality disorder which lends itself to acting out on the paraphilia and the continued unaddressed substance abuse. In his opinion, respondent is predisposed to commit sexually violent acts, as has been established by the pattern of acts, the respondent's severe impulse control deficits, and his substance abusing.

The trial court found that the diagnoses by Dr. Brice-Baker were consistent with Dr. McAllister's: "She diagnoses paraphilia N.O.S., substance abuse, depression N.O.S. by history, and anti-social personality disorder. It can be seen that her diagnoses do not differ from those of Dr. McAllister." The court also noted, however, that Dr. Brice-Baker disagreed with Dr. McAllister's evaluation of the risk of recidivism, and Judge Perretti concluded that Dr. McAllister's reasons for evaluating the risk as high were more persuasive.

The scope of appellate review of a trial court's decision in a commitment proceeding has been described as "extremely narrow, with the utmost deference accorded the reviewing judge's determination as to the appropriate accommodation of the competing interests of individual liberty and societal safety in the particular case." State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282, 311 (1978). The trial court's determination may only be modified "where the record reveals a clear abuse of discretion." In re Civil Commitment of V.A., 357 N.J. Super. 55, 63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 177 N.J. 490 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). A reviewing court must be mindful that the Legislative intent in adopting the Act was "to afford protection to society from those sexually violent predators who pose a danger as a result of a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes them likely to engage in repeated acts of predatory sexual violence." Id. at 64 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We affirm the judgment continuing G.L.M.'s involuntary commitment substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Perretti in her comprehensive oral opinion on August 5, 2005. The record fully supports her findings and her conclusion that the State met its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that G.L.M. continues to suffer from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that presently causes him serious difficulty in controlling sexually harmful behavior such that he is highly likely to reoffend. W.Z., supra, 173 N.J. at 132.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-6691-04T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

February 7, 2006