IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF D.B.

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                     NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3616-15T5


IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL
COMMITMENT OF D.B., SVP-725-15.
______________________________

           Submitted January 24, 2018 – Decided February 15, 2018

           Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

           On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
           Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-
           725-15.

           Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
           for appellant (Thomas G. Hand, Designated
           Counsel, on the brief).

           Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
           for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
           Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly Ann
           Eaton, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

     D.B. appeals from a December 29, 2015 judgment committing him

under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), 
N.J.S.A. 30:4-

27.24 to -27.38, to the Special Treatment Unit (STU), the State

facility   designated     for   the   custody,    care,   and   treatment       of

sexually violent predators.        He argues:
            THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING D.B. WAS
            PRESENTLY HIGHLY LIKELY TO COMMIT A SEXUAL
            OFFENSE BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DID
            NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A FINDING OF A MENTAL
            ABNORMALITY NOR DID IT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A
            PRESENT RISK TO SEXUALLY REOFFEND.

     We have found no clear mistake or error in either the trial

court's factual determinations or its legal conclusions.              To the

contrary,   the   trial   court's   decision     is   amply   supported      by

substantial credible evidence on the record.          We therefore affirm.

     These are the facts.      On different dates between August 1988

and May 1989, throughout Essex and Union Counties, D.B. raped six

women and attempted to rape a seventh.            In each case, through

either ruse or force, D.B. gained entry to the women's homes.

     D.B. pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault

on each of two Union County indictments.         The court sentenced him

on each offense to serve an indeterminate term, not to exceed

twenty years, with ten years of parole ineligibility, at the Adult

Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) at Avenel.             The sentences

were concurrent.

     On each of four Essex County indictments, D.B. pled guilty

to one count of second-degree burglary and one count of first-

degree   aggravated   sexual   assault.     On    a   fifth   Essex    County

indictment, D.B. pled guilty to second-degree burglary and second-

degree attempted sexual assault.          For all offenses, the court


                                    2                                 A-3616-15T5
sentenced D.B. to an aggregate fifty-year prison term with twenty-

five years of parole ineligibility.

     D.B. served ten years at the ADTC and the remainder of his

time before parole in state prison.             Shortly before his release

from state prison, the State filed a petition for D.B.'s civil

commitment under the SVPA.         The trial court issued an order for

D.B.'s temporary civil commitment on July 1, 2015.            Judge Philip

M. Freedman held a hearing on November 19 and December 22, 2015.

     At the hearing, the State presented two expert witnesses, and

D.B. presented one expert witness.              The first of the State's

experts,   Dr.   Dean   DeCrisce,    MD,    a    psychiatrist,   was     asked

explicitly, "Did you find that [D.B.] suffers from a mental

abnormality or personality disorder that impacts his volitional,

emotional or cognitive functioning so as to predispose him to

engage in acts of sexual violence?"        Dr. DeCrisce responded, "Yes,

I did."    Dr. DeCrisce testified his diagnosis included "coercive

paraphilia," "antisocial personality disorder without evidence for

conduct disorder as a youth," and a number of substance abuse

diagnoses.

     D.B.'s   expert    witness,    Dr.   Christopher   Lorah,   Ph.D.,       an

expert psychologist, also testified at the November 2015 hearing.

Dr. Lorah testified D.B. suffered from a paraphilic disorder but



                                      3                                A-3616-15T5
not an antisocial personality disorder, and "all of his offending

comes from the strength of the paraphilic disorder."

     The State also offered the testimony of Dr. Jamie Canataro,

Psy.D., an expert psychologist.             Dr. Canataro diagnosed D.B. as

exhibiting "sexual sadism provisionally, paraphilia [not otherwise

specified],     nonconsent,      with    elements         of    voyeurism,        other

specified    personality    disorder        with    antisocial         features,    and

alcohol and cannabis use disorder, moderate."                    Dr. Canataro did

not diagnose anti-social personality disorder because "the early

onset of his personality disorder is not clear."

     With regard to D.B.'s likelihood of reoffending upon his

reentry into the community, Dr. DeCrisce testified he "believe[d]

the diagnosis predisposes him to re-offend because of the nature

of his offense history, the strength of the arousal and the history

of his offenses."       The doctor explained D.B.'s diagnosis affects

him volitionally, cognitively, and emotionally.                   Also, when asked

how he would "characterize [D.B.'s] current risk to . . . sexually

re-offend if released into the community," Dr. DeCrisce believed

"he would be highly likely" to sexually re-offend.

     Dr.     Lorah,   however,    testified         D.B.       could    control     his

conditions if managed properly upon his return to the community.

     Dr.    Canataro,    like    Dr.    DeCrisce,     testified         that    D.B.'s

paraphilia    condition    predisposes        him    to    sexually       re-offend.

                                        4                                      A-3616-15T5
Further, she explained D.B. had a high risk of sexually reoffending

if released into the community because of "[h]is deviant sexual

arousal   patterns    combined     with   his    antisocial   personality

structure and the psychopathic personality traits."

     On December 29, 2015, in an oral decision, Judge Freedman

explained that after hearing the testimony of all three experts,

he found by clear and convincing evidence D.B. "suffers from mental

abnormalities, anti-personality disorder that [a]ffect him . . .

emotionally, cognitively, and volitionally" and D.B. "would be

highly likely . . . in the reasonably foreseeable future, to engage

in acts of sexual violence."       Further, the judge found D.B. is a

dangerous person who poses a high risk to the community.            He cited

the testimony of both of the State's experts, stating he credited

their testimony that none of the treatment had had any effect on

D.B. and the "kind of arousal [he suffers from] does not go away."

Judge Freedman granted the State's petition to civilly commit D.B.

under the SVPA.     This appeal followed.

      The SVPA authorizes the Attorney General to initiate court

proceedings   for    involuntary    commitment     of   sexually    violent

predators.    
N.J.S.A.    30:4-27.28.      Sexually     violent    predators

include persons:

               who ha[ve] been convicted, adjudicated
          delinquent or found not guilty by reason of
          insanity for commission of a sexually violent

                                     5                               A-3616-15T5
           offense . . . and suffer[] from a mental
           abnormality or personality disorder that makes
           [them] 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.]

      Thus, 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 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     Civil

Commitment of R.F., 
217 N.J. 152, 173 (2014) (quoting In re

Commitment of W.Z., 
173 N.J. 109 at 130 (2002)).1

      "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)).        We afford "special deference" to the



  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 "'[m]ental
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-3616-15T5
expertise of judges who hear SVPA cases because they are generally

"specialists" in that field.    Ibid. (citing In re Civil Commitment

of T.J.N., 
390 N.J. Super. 218, 226 (App. Div. 2007)).             A trial

court's decision to commit an individual should be modified only

when "the record reveals a clear mistake."          Id. at 175 (quoting

D.C., 
146 N.J. at 58).       "The appropriate inquiry is to canvass

the significant amount of expert testimony in the record and

determine   whether   the   lower   court['s]    findings   were   clearly

erroneous."   D.C., 
146 N.J. at 58-59 (citation omitted).

     Having canvassed the expert testimony in the record, we have

found no clear mistake or error. To the contrary, Judge Freedman's

findings are amply supported by substantial credible evidence in

the record.   See State v. Locurto, 
157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999).

These findings satisfy the statutory elements required to civilly

commit a sex offender under the SVPA.           D.B.'s arguments to the

contrary, which are mostly based on D.B.'s disagreement with the

weight the judge gave to the evidence, are without sufficient

merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion.                 R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

     Affirmed.




                                    7                              A-3616-15T5