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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-2750-23
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF J.M.B., SVP-358-04.1
Submitted September 8, 2025 – Decided October 23, 2025
Before Judges Sabatino and Walcott-Henderson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. SVP-358-04.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.M.B. (Phuong V. Dao, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa and Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel; Stephen J. Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
1 We use initials to refer to appellant and his victims because records pertaining to civil commitment proceedings under the SVPA are deemed confidential under N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.27(c) and are excluded from public access pursuant to R. 1:38- 3(f)(2). PER CURIAM
Appellant J.M.B. appeals from the trial court's April 3, 2024 order
continuing his involuntary civil commitment to the Special Treatment Unit
("STU") pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"), N.J.S.A. 30:4-
27.24 to -27.38. We affirm.
I.
We incorporate by reference the background described in our published
opinion upholding appellant's initial commitment in 2004 to the STU, In re
Commitment of J.M.B., 395 N.J. Super. 69 (App. Div. 2007), and the Supreme
Court's subsequent opinion affirming that decision, In re Commitment of J.M.B.,
197 N.J. 563 (2009) (confirming that J.M.B.'s convictions constitute "sexually
violent offenses" under the SVPA).
As detailed in those opinions, appellant has an extensive criminal history
spanning from 1977 to 2000, including both sexually motivated crimes as well
as non-sexual offenses. Our 2007 opinion concluded that, although appellant
had not been convicted of one of the predicate sexual offenses specifically
enumerated in the SVPA, his conviction of multiple other offenses against
minors factually satisfied the statute's "catchall" provision, N.J.S.A. 30:4-
27.26(b). J.M.B., 395 N.J. Super. at 92. We also rejected appellant's arguments
A-2750-23 2 that the application of the SVPA to him is unconstitutional. Id. at 97-98. As
noted, the Supreme Court affirmed our determinations. J.M.B., 197 N.J. at 601.
Now seventy-three years old, appellant contends that he does not meet the
criteria for civil commitment. His ongoing commitment 2 was the subject of an
evidentiary hearing on February 23, 2024, at which appellant represented
himself with the assistance of standby counsel.
At the hearing, the trial judge heard expert testimony from an evaluating
psychiatrist, Roger Harris, M.D., and a psychologist, Paul Dudek, Ph.D. Both
Drs. Harris and Dudek testified for the State. The experts collectively diagnosed
appellant with sexual sadism disorder, paraphilic disorder, antisocial personality
disorder, and alcohol use and cannabis use disorders. They both opined that
appellant has failed to engage in sexual offender treatment at the STU and
continues to present a high risk of sexual recidivism. Appellant testified at the
hearing on his own behalf, and did not present an opposing expert.
The SVPA sets forth three prerequisites for initial and continued
commitment. A person must have been: (1) "convicted, adjudicated delinquent
or found not guilty by reason of insanity for commission of a sexually violent
2 There is no indication in the record that J.M.B. has appealed his continued civil commitment orders between 2004 and the present matter. A-2750-23 3 offense, or . . . charged with a sexually violent offense but found to be
incompetent to stand trial;" (2) suffer "from a mental abnormality or personality
disorder" predisposing him to commit acts of sexual violence; and (3) as a result
of that mental abnormality or personality disorder be "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. The February 2024 review hearing focused
mainly on the latter two elements, as the first element of a qualifying conviction
had already been determined to be fulfilled by this court and our Supreme Court.
On April 3, 2024, the judge rendered a detailed twenty-one-page written
decision and entered an order that continued appellant's commitment. After
weighing the evidence, the judge concluded the State's experts were credible and
the State had proved by clear and convincing evidence that appellant met the
standard for all three commitment prongs and was highly likely to reoffend.
Through his appellate counsel, J.M.B. now raises the following arguments
on appeal:
POINT I
GIVEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN J.[M.]B.'S AGE, THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW BY A CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD THAT J.[M.]B. REQUIRES ONGOING CIVIL COMMITMENT.
A-2750-23 4 POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CARRY OUT ITS ROLE AS A GATEKEEPER BECAUSE IT IGNORED THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY J.[M.]B.
In addition, appellant raises the following points 3 in a self-represented
supplemental brief:
SUPPLEMENTAL POINT I
The Court Erred When It Relied On Unfounded Information Regarding the Appellant's Psychiatric Abnormality or Disorder in the Predicate Offenses.
SUPPLEMENTAL POINT II
There Are No Licensed Psychiatrists in the Special Treatment Unit Overseeing D.O.H. Employees Who Are Employed by the Special Treatment Unit.
SUPPLEMENTAL POINT III
Mr. Dudek, Ph.D., Practices Medicine Without a Medical License and Makes Medical Diagnoses as a Psychiatrist and Prescribes Courses of Treatment That Only a Psychiatrist Can Prescribe.
SUPPLEMENTAL POINT IV
In Accordance to the Beginning of the [SVPA] N.J.S.A., 30:4-27.24 to 30:4-27.38., Appellant is Supposed to be Interviewed by a Psychiatrist of His Treatment Team.
3 The supplemental brief was handwritten by the appellant, whose points are reproduced with minor non-substantive grammatical changes. A-2750-23 5 SUPPLEMENTAL POINT V
Appellant Has Never Been Criminally Sentenced To: Megan's Law, CSL, PSL, or Anything Else Which Would Require an Electronic Monitor Bracelet.
SUPPLEMENTAL POINT VI
Static 99 Has Not Been Updated for the Rehearing.
II.
Having fully considered these arguments, we affirm, substantially for the
sound reasons expressed by the trial judge in her written opinion. We add the
following words of amplification.
The scope of appellate review of judgments of commitment is extremely
narrow. In re Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 174-75 (2014). "[C]ommitting
judges under the SVPA are specialists in the area," whose "expertise in the
subject [is entitled to] 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)). The trial court's
commitment determination will be subject to modification on appeal only where
"the record reveals a clear mistake." R.F., 217 N.J. at 175. Further, an appellate
court must give special deference to the trial court's findings "because they have
the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case,
A-2750-23 6 which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J.
146, 161 (1964)); see also In re Commitment of M.L.V., 388 N.J. Super. 454,
468 (App. Div. 2006).
The testimony of the State's two experts, uncontradicted by any opposing
experts, amply supports the trial court's determination. We recite here some
pertinent excerpts from that testimony.
Dr. Harris
Dr. Harris, the State's expert psychiatrist, testified that he had conducted
a face-to-face examination of J.M.B. at the STU on February 9, 2024, which
lasted approximately fifteen minutes before J.M.B. terminated the examination.
After the examination, he prepared a report. The sources upon which Dr. Harris
relied are of the type normally relied upon by experts in his field. Although the
information sources may include the diagnoses or opinions of other evaluators,
Dr. Harris reached his own conclusions.4
4 The record clearly shows that those background documents and assessments were only considered to the extent that they helped inform the experts ' overall opinions, as items reasonably relied upon by others in their field. See N.J.R.E. 703; In re Civ. Commitment of E.S.T., 371 N.J. Super. 562, 576 (App. Div. 2004); In re Civ. Commitment of A.X.D., 370 N.J. Super. 198, 201-02 (App. Div. 2004). The same is true of the reported facts underlying appellant's convictions. In re Civ. Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599, 613 (App. Div. 2003).
A-2750-23 7 Dr. Harris explained in his report that J.M.B.'s offenses were sexually
motivated, describing how J.M.B. has "a long history of being sexually aroused
[by] tying up boys. He has reported this arousal began in grade school, that he
has tied up many boys, and he would get an erection when tying people up " and
that J.M.B. reported to Dr. Harris his 1981 offense "was to humiliate and cause
[the victim] pain. It was not sexually arousing. I[t] was gratifying at the time.
I enjoyed doing this. I was a sadist. I am not now." The report also detailed
how, in an evaluation in 2014 when J.M.B. discussed his 1989 offense, he stated
"I took my anger out on him [the victim]. I tied him up and gave him a haircut.
I was aroused to control him."
Dr. Harris diagnosed J.M.B. with sexual sadism disorder, other specified
paraphilic disorder as to teenage boys, antisocial personality disorder, and
alcohol and cannabis use disorders.
Dr. Harris described that the basis for the paraphilic disorder was J.M.B.'s
history of "recruiting underage boys . . . for his sexual gratification." The
antisocial personality disorder diagnosis was based on J.M.B.'s "pervasive
pattern for disregarding and violating others, failure to conform to social norms,
being impulsive, irritability and aggressiveness, reckless disregard for the safety
of others and a lack of remorse."
A-2750-23 8 Although Dr. Harris did not testify as to J.M.B.'s sexual sadism diagnosis,
his expert report discussing the Severe Sexual Sadism Scale showed J.M.B
received a score of 9 out of 11, exhibiting a very high preponderance of sexually
sadistic behaviors. 5 This score was based on J.M.B.'s following behaviors: (1)
punching one victim and ripping the hair off of two other victims; (2) tying up
multiple victims; (3) knocking one victim unconscious; (4) abducting some
victims; (5) controlling and humiliating victims; (6) ritualistically tying boys up,
gagging them, and taping their eyes shut; (7) attempting to put an object in one
victim's mouth; and (8) keeping photographs and hair taped to the photographs
of some of his victims while they were bound.
Dr. Harris underscored that J.M.B. has not engaged in sex offender
treatment while civilly committed and has not learned to control his sexually
violent tendencies and thus is at a high risk to sexually reoffend:
[J.M.B.'s treatment record] did not demonstrate that [J.M.B.] has mitigated his risk to reoffend . . . in the future. In fact, it has shown that [J.M.B.] is essentially an individual who has not engaged in treatment and . . . is essentially an untreated man who has committed sexual offenses.
....
5 A score of 4 meets diagnostic criteria, and 7 is the median score. A-2750-23 9 [J.M.B.]'s age is mitigating. [But] I don't think it's sufficiently mitigating at all. [J.M.B] has not engaged in treatment and we understand that sexual arousal patterns are an enduring pattern of arousal that the individual has for their lifetime.
[J.M.B] has not engaged in treatment to learn about his offending, to develop any skills that could help him from sexual offending in the future, skills to help him cognitively or emotionally regulate himself. [J.M.B.] does not acknowledge the sexual components of his offending, and again, feels that he should not be at the STU.
So . . . despite some mitigation of his age, [J.M.B.] poses similar risk that he did years and years ago as . . . he has not participated, has not completed any of the basic programmatic requirements, written requirements at the STU, and is not engaged in treatment. So, I think [J.M.B.] is at high risk to sexually reoffend at the present time.
I think the engine that drives [J.M.B.]'s sexual offending is both his sexual sadistic disorder as well as his arousal to teenage boys. . . . [H]is antisocial personality disorder further impairs his ability to regulate those deviant arousals as his ability to self- regulate and inhibit that arousal is diminished by his deficits from his antisocial personality disorder. If [J.M.B.] is additionally intoxicated, that would certainly lower his threshold more for sexual offending.
I certainly think he's capable of offending and . . . his access to victims is relatively easy by just driving
A-2750-23 10 up to them and engaging them in . . . conversation. So, that's something he has repeatedly done. There's no limitation on his ability to do that at the present time.
. . . Right now, [J.M.B.] is holding himself hostage from treatment, but . . . he certainly has the potential to engage in treatment and learn about his offending.
[H]e has not gained any of the skills that the STU offers which empirically have been shown to mitigate risk.
[(Emphases added).]
Addressing J.M.B.'s risk of future sexual reoffending, Dr. Harris further
articulated that:
We know that the combination of a deviant arousal plus antisocial attitudes and behaviors are . . . correlated with future sexual reoffending.
His Static score is a 5, which places him above average risk to sexually reoffend. He has a . . . number of dynamic factors which empirically have been shown to increase risk beyond what an actuarial instrument measures, and that is he has a deviant arousal, he has more than one paraphilia, he has antisocial attitudes and behaviors, poor self-regulation, poor cognitive problem-solving, use of sex for coping, sexualized violence, violated supervision and has led a lifestyle of impulsivity.
A-2750-23 11 Dr. Dudek
Dr. Dudek, the State's expert psychologist, was a member of the treatment
progress review committee ("TPRC") which conducted its annual review of
J.M.B.'s treatment course and issued a report. The committee met in August
2023 to assess J.M.B.'s progress, but J.M.B. declined to attend the meeting.
Dr. Dudek's testimony was consistent with his expert annual report issued
following the review. The sources upon which Dr. Dudek relied on are of the
type normally relied upon by experts in his field. Although those sources may
contain prior evaluators' diagnoses or assessments, the expert formulated his
own opinions.
Dr. Dudek diagnosed J.M.B. with sexual sadistic disorder, other specified
paraphilic disorder to non-consent and hebephilia (preference for children
between ages 11 through 14), other specified personality disorders with
antisocial and borderline features, alcohol and cannabis use disorders, and
malingering.
The paraphilic disorder is based on J.M.B.'s "repetitive pattern which has
manifested in bondage and aggression towards men and underage boys . . .
[J.M.B.] also appears to have a sexual arousal particularly towards pubescent
boys."
A-2750-23 12 The sexual sadistic disorder was based on J.M.B.'s "sexual offense history
in which he has reported tying up approximately 20 children starting in grade
school, having an erection while tying them up . . . . Records indicate he placed
the boys in bondage as a means of humiliating them." Further, "[n]ot only was
his behavior ritualistic in that he would tie up the boys, gag them, and put tape
over their eyes, he also abducted some of his victims and kept photographs and
hair of some of his victims."
Regarding the personality disorder, Dr. Dudek based this on J.M.B.'s
demonstrated history of "reckless disregard for the well-being of others,
impulsivity, lack of remorse, poor decision-making abilities, low frustration
tolerance, deceitful and conning behavior for pleasure, and failure to conform to
social norms with respect to lawful behaviors" as well as "self-mutilating
behaviors and . . . a history of unstable relationships."
As for the substance use disorders, Dr. Dudek found that "[J.M.B.] has
exhibited maladaptive patterns of using alcohol and marijuana. Records indicate
that he has incurred several legal charges for his marijuana use and that
substances played a role on his sexual offending behaviors." Dr. Dudek
confirmed that J.M.B.'s sexually based offending arises primarily out of his
paraphilic disorders and his sexual sadism disorder.
A-2750-23 13 Dr. Dudek also performed assessments of J.M.B.'s recidivism risk,
utilizing the Static-99R6 and the Sexual Violence Risk Scale, 7 Sex Offender
edition ("VRS-SO"). Dr. Dudek scored J.M.B. on the Static-99R at a 5, which
places him at the "[a]bove [a]verage risk for being charged or convicted o[f]
another sexual offense."8 For the VRS-SO, J.M.B.'s pre-treatment score was 42
and his post-treatment present score was also a 42 since he has failed to engage
in treatment, which is "considered to be well above average" and "shows there
6 "The Static–99[R] is an actuarial test used to estimate the probability of sexually violent recidivism in adult males previously convicted of sexually violent offenses." R.F., 217 N.J. at 164 n.9 (citing Andrew Harris et al., Static- 99 Coding Rules Revised-2003 5 (2003)). The Static-99R score is based on ten factors: (1) age at release (score range is -3 to 1); (2) ever lived with (no two year relationship) (yes = 1, no = 0); (3) index non-sexual violence convictions (yes = 1, no = 0); (4) prior non-sexual violence convictions (yes = 1, no = 0); (5) prior sex offenses (score range is 0-3); (6) prior sentencing dates (excluding index) (yes = 1, no = 0); (7) convictions for non-contact sex offenses (yes = 1, no = 0); (8) any unrelated victims (yes = 1, no = 0); (9) any stranger victims (yes = 1, no = 0); and (10) any male victims (yes = 1, no = 0). The scores for each question are then combined to form the Static-99R score. 7 As described in Dr. Dudek's report, "[t]he VRS – SO is an actuarial risk assessment instrument that assesses historical (static) and stable but changeable (dynamic) risk factors, as well as post-treatment change in dynamic risk using the Stages of Change Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1986). It is currently the only risk assessment instrument specifically normed on individuals who ar e incarcerated for sexual offenses." 8 We reject appellant's self-represented argument, which is unsupported by competent expert testimony, that his score should be reduced to 3.
A-2750-23 14 has been no clear mediation or mitigation of risk." As Dr. Dudek explained,
"[i]ndividuals with this score had approximately a 45% recidivism rate after five
years and a 58% recidivism rate ten years after being exposed to risk."
Dr. Dudek testified that J.M.B. has remained in phase one 9 of treatment at
the STU since his initial commitment in 2004 because he has refused to
participate in treatment. Dr. Dudek further outlined J.M.B.'s lack of
participation in treatment, noting that:
[H]is participation in the treatment orientation process group has been based on discussing victim of system issues, more -- there will be more institutionally-related concerns, but he has indicated quite adamantly that he will not discuss the nature of the arrest history, his fantasies, his sexual arousal, really much of anything that would be a part of treatment at the STU.
That orientation that he's maintained against engaging in treatment has kept him essentially stuck for decades.
When discussing J.M.B.'s risk of reoffending, Dr. Dudek described that:
Well, one of the things that research on recidivism in terms of sex offending tells us is that certainly past behavior is one of the best predictors of a future behavior, and that if you look at the difference between when he was last convicted to the present and
9 Treatment levels within the STU are organized up to phase three, with phase three being the most advanced. A-2750-23 15 the amount of treatment that he's engaged in, there has been no meaningful treatment in the sense that he could be considered an untreated sex offender, so that the permissive attitudes and arousal and the precursors to offending unlikely have changed since the time of the offenses.
Dr. Dudek also described how J.M.B.'s lack of program participation at
the STU affects his risk of reoffending:
One of the concerns of that is that it comes in terms of . . . how one would develop of social support groups . . . in the community. It also creates concerns that are related to compliance with supervision, that if an individual struggles to make on a consistent basis self-help groups within the facility that it calls into question their willingness to . . . engage in self-help programming in the community if they were to be conditionally discharged.
Overall, Dr. Dudek agreed that J.M.B.'s risk of sexually reoffending was
highly likely. Dr. Dudek's report notes that:
[T]here are a number of dynamic risk factors that apply in [J.M.B.'s] case. These risk factors, correlated empirically with recidivism include, social rejection, lack of concern for others, impulsivity, poor cognitive problem solving, negative emotionality, patterns of deviant sexual arousal, sexual preoccupation, and deficits in his capacity for relationships.
While he interacts well with his peers he does not have any known positive supports that would assist him in managing dynamic risks of re-offense and shows a
A-2750-23 16 disregard for any concern for others and their safety in regards to potential victims. Related to this is his pattern of deviant arousal that has been unaddressed in treatment and he has demonstrated while in the community little to no desire to control his sexual urges. While he had reportedly been in a long term relationship, he continued to act on his sexual urges related to his deviant sexual arousal. Additionally, he has a history of substance abuse that has also been unaddressed clinically.
We also briefly recount the substance of appellant's testimony.
J.M.B.'s Testimony
J.M.B. testified on his own behalf. He emphasized that he has never been
convicted of any sex crimes and, as such, feels he does not need to partake in
treatment at the STU. J.M.B. further noted that since being committed to the
STU, he has had no disciplinary offenses, nor used any illicit substances.
During his testimony, J.M.B. submitted twelve documents into evidence:
1. A September 4, 2023 one-page letter typed by J.M.B. in which he denies having been convicted of a sexually violent offense.
2. A flier indicating that J.M.B. knitted and donated over 100 hats to a volunteer fire department.
3. A letter from the administrator of the South Woods State Prison noting the dates J.M.B. was incarcerated.
4. Historical Prison Summary from South Woods State Prison.
5. Burlington County Detective Division Document.
A-2750-23 17 6. Appellate Division Document dated August 10, 2016.
7. Presentence Report, Indictment Number 006-462.
8. Plea Form for Indictment Number 006-462.
9. An excerpted page providing definitions related to the SVPA N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26
10. A letter dated May 23, 2002 written to J.M.B. from his then- counsel confirming he was not subject to Megan's Law reporting.
11. Judgment of Conviction from December 4, 1995.
12. Judgment of Conviction from March 1, 1991.
The Trial Court's Decision
As noted, the trial court issued a twenty-one-page written decision on
April 3, 2024, finding that the State had satisfied each prong of the SVPA by
clear and convincing evidence and ordering J.M.B.'s continued civil
commitment. The court recounted the procedural history of this matter, and the
evidence and testimony submitted in detail. The court expressly found Drs.
Harris and Dudek credible, noting their familiarity with the case, confidence in
their opinions, and believable demeanors, as well as their opinions being
supported by the treatment notes. The court further noted that the experts'
reliance upon informational sources in forming their opinions was sound and
appropriate.
A-2750-23 18 The court found that J.M.B.'s present high risk to sexually reoffend and
his extensive history of non-compliance with supervision in the community
demonstrate that he would not be highly likely to comply with a conditional
discharge plan at this time. Further, the court noted that J.M.B. "has not
mitigated this risk at present through sex-offender treatment available at the
STU."
Given this evidence and the trial judge's conscientious analysis of the
proofs, we are unpersuaded by appellant's argument that he is now too old to
present a sufficient risk of sexual re-offense to justify his continued
commitment. For the reasons detailed by the two experts, the evidence
manifestly shows that, despite his age, appellant continues to pose a high risk of
re-offense if released. He has made negligible progress during his period of
commitment and has refused to participate meaningfully in therapeutic
activities.
Notably, J.M.B.'s most recent offense, involving an incident where he tied
up a fourteen-year old and placed tape over his eyes, took place when J.M.B.
was forty-eight years old. As found by Dr. Harris, neither J.M.B.'s age nor his
physical condition would prevent him from reoffending against his "victim
pool." Dr. Harris explicitly testified that he considered J.M.B.'s age as a
A-2750-23 19 mitigating factor and explained that, in spite of his age, he still poses a similar
risk as he did years ago because he has refused treatment. Further, as Dr. Dudek
acknowledged in his testimony, the Static-99R score clearly takes into
consideration the individual's age. In particular, consistent with the Static-99R
actuarial scoring set forth in Dr. Dudek's report, J.M.B.'s score was reduced by
three points (the maximum reduction for that characteristic) based on his age.
Hence, J.M.B.'s age was properly discussed and considered, but that facet was
insufficient to tip the balance against the strong reasons justifying his continued
commitment.
Moreover, J.M.B.'s age and lack of treatment participation are only two
of the many factors the State's experts and trial judge ultimately relied on to
conclude J.M.B. had a high risk of future offenses. The judge also considered:
(1) J.M.B.'s extensive criminal history of both sexual and non-sexual offenses
against both children and adults; (2) his continued offenses despite multiple
arrests and incarcerations including offenses while he was on parole and
probation; (3) his self-perception as a victim rather than a perpetrator; (4) the
cumulative effect of his sexual sadism disorder, paraphilic disorder, and
antisocial personality disorder; (5) the ritualistic behaviors of tying boys up and
taking trophies of their hair and over one hundred photographs of boys tied and
A-2750-23 20 gagged; and (6) his lack of insight, poor self-control, narcissism, poor problem
solving skills, poor coping mechanisms, and poor social support.
We also are unpersuaded by appellant's contention that the trial judge
prejudicially overlooked material exhibits that he had submitted. Notably, the
only evidence appellant's counsel relies on to challenge appellant's mental health
diagnosis is the September 4, 2023 letter written by appellant himself, where he
disclaims his Antisocial and Borderline Personality Disorder diagnosis. 10 The
letter alleges that, to diagnose Antisocial and Borderline Personality Disorder
according to the DSM-5, "one must have a juvenile record . . . which I do not
have."
However, Dr. Harris testified that the DSM-5 does not require a juvenile
record for Antisocial Personality Disorder. Moreover, Dr. Harris's report
explains that "[t]here is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15
years for [J.M.B.] and he . . . meets [the] criteria [for] this diagnosis." Likewise,
Dr. Dudek explicitly noted in his testimony that J.M.B.'s sexually based
offending "arises out of the . . . paraphilic disorders . . . as well as sexual . . .
sadism disorder" rather than from his antisocial and borderline personality
10 The letter also contends that the expert doctors misrepresented some information regarding J.M.B.'s substance use disorder diagnoses but does not claim the diagnosis as a whole is inappropriate. A-2750-23 21 disorder. J.M.B.'s layperson assertion that he does not have a personality
disorder lacks credibility and does not repudiate the credible diagnoses made by
Drs. Harris and Dudek.
The criminal records and documents J.M.B. submitted to argue he was not
convicted of a sexually violent offense are irrelevant, as the Supreme Court
already ruled on that precise issue and found J.M.B.'s criminal history and
convictions qualify him for civil commitment under SVPA's catch-all definition
of sexually violent offenses. J.M.B., 197 N.J. at 595. Appellant's argument is
plainly barred by principles of res judicata. The preclusionary doctrine of res
judicata involves elements that are all present here: common parties, common
subject matters, common issues and common evidence, as well as a final
judgment rendered in the first action on the merits. See Velasquez v. Franz, 123
N.J. 498, 505-06 (1991); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19
(A.L.I. 1982).
The various other documents submitted by J.M.B do not materially affect
the court's analysis. The flier indicating he knitted over 100 hats for veterans,
although admirable, does not affect his risk of committing future acts of sexual
violence. The letter from the South Woods State Prison administrator that was
used in part to dismiss one of his previous indictments does not affect the
A-2750-23 22 Supreme Court's finding that he is a sexually violent offender. Appellant's
behaviors while in State Prison are not emblematic of his risk of reoffending on
release, as many of his bondage victims were underage and he was at an adult
prison. The definitions of the SVPA regarding convicted sex offenders were
clearly considered by the Supreme Court when finding him eligible for civil
commitment. The plea agreement that failed to inform J.M.B. of the possibility
of civil commitment does not affect the Supreme Court's ruling that he is eligible
for civil commitment based on his criminal history.
In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to mention
these miscellaneous pieces of evidence in its written opinion. The court's
finding that J.M.B. meets the three criteria for civil commitment based on clear
and convincing evidence is supported by the record and should not be disturbed
on appeal.
Appellant's self-represented assertions about Dr. Dudek's alleged lack of
proper credentials are without merit. The statute only requires one of the experts
who attests the individual to be a sexually violent predator on admission to be a
psychiatrist. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.28(b). Dr. Dudek, as a licensed psychologist,
is manifestly qualified to make mental health diagnoses. N.J.S.A. 45:14B -2(b).
In addition, Dr. Harris, who is a psychiatrist, personally assessed appellant for
A-2750-23 23 his review hearing and extensively reviewed the pertinent treatment documents.
We reject appellant's arguments, not substantially endorsed by his
attorney, that Dr. Harris was not a member of appellant's "treatment team" on
the STU. In supplemental briefing, the State clarified, that although Dr. Harris
maintains a private practice, he regularly provides psychiatric care and servic es
to STU residents and functioned in this case as a member of appellant's treatment
team. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.6 (defining "treatment team" to include
"individuals, agencies or firms which provide treatment, supervision or other
services" at the STU) (emphasis added). Also, appellant's stand-by counsel
stipulated to Dr. Harris's qualifications to testify in this case as an expert
psychiatrist with particular expertise in performing SVPA risk assessments.
We have fully considered all other arguments made by appellant through
his counsel and on his own behalf, and conclude they lack sufficient merit to
warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2750-23 24