Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4577-11T2
09-12-2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF G.C. SVP-625-11.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant G.C. (Alison Perrone, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephen Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Haas. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-625-11. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant G.C. (Alison Perrone, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephen Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant G.C. appeals from an April 2, 2012 order, finding him to be a sexually violent predator and ordering that he be committed to the Special Treatment Unit, pursuant to the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. We affirm.
The evidence was set forth at length in the oral opinion of Judge James F. Mulvihill issued on April 2, 2012. We briefly summarize it here. G.C. has a very long history of being sexually aroused by brushing the hair of prepubescent girls. He lures them to locations where he can be alone with them, brushes their hair, and sometimes masturbates in their presence. The children are not physically hurt, but are psychologically harmed, according to the State's psychiatric expert, Dr. Pogos Voskanian.
Defendant refused to be interviewed by Dr. Voskanian. However, Dr. Voskanian testified that he reviewed G.C.'s treatment and institutional records, including the reports of other experts, and arrived at his own independent conclusions.
Since 1983, defendant has repeatedly committed these offenses, despite several prison terms and years of treatment in the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC). He committed his most recent offense while he was on community supervision for life and wearing a GPS ankle bracelet. After his most recent criminal conviction, he refused to accept treatment and asked the court to sentence him to the regular prison system rather than the ADTC. Shortly before G.C.'s release, the State sought to have him civilly committed pursuant to the SVPA.
In his opinion, Judge Mulvihill credited the testimony of Dr. Voskanian and a second expert, Dr. Brian Friedman, that defendant suffers from paraphilia and pedophilia, as well as anti-social personality disorder, and dependence on drugs and alcohol. The judge also found by clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a "very high risk" of reoffending if released, and that his offenses posed a serious danger of psychological trauma to the child victims.
On this appeal, our review of Judge Mulvihill's decision is extremely limited. In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001) ("The scope of appellate review of a trial court's decision in a commitment proceeding is extremely narrow."). We will disturb his decision only where there was a clear abuse of discretion, and "it is our responsibility to canvass the record, inclusive of the expert testimony, to determine whether the findings made by the trial judge were clearly erroneous." In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 407 N.J. Super. 619, 630 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd, 204 N.J. 179 (2010). In light of his expertise in handling these cases, "[w]e must give the 'utmost deference' to [Judge Mulvihill's] determination of the appropriate balancing of societal interest and individual liberty." Ibid. (citation omitted).
On this appeal, defendant contends that the State "failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that G.C. was subject to SVP commitment." Having reviewed the record we find his appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Mulvihill's thorough opinion.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION