STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SAYVON LAWSÂ (13-01-0182 AND 13-04-0640, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5249-13T3

Background

Appellant (age 53) has a long history of sexual offenses and alcohol abuse, including a 1984 conviction(s) for sexual contact and a 2008 Atlantic City incident (digital penetration) that led to an 18‑month sentence. The 2008 conviction was later vacated but other convictions and arrests remained in the record.
The State petitioned for civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) in 2009; appellant was initially committed to the Special Treatment Unit (STU).
In 2010 the parties entered consent orders conditionally discharging appellant to supervised community placement (Keswick) with treatment and GPS monitoring conditions comparable to Parole Supervision for Life.
Appellant violated conditions (including cutting off a GPS bracelet and returning to Atlantic City intoxicated in 2012) and was returned to the STU; review hearings followed in 2012 and 2014.
State experts (Drs. Goldwaser and Roquet) diagnosed chronic paraphilic/sexual disorder and antisocial personality disorder, scored appellant high on Static‑99R, and opined he was highly likely to reoffend absent secure confinement. Appellant’s expert (Dr. Lorah) attributed much offending to alcohol abuse and disputed a paraphilic diagnosis.
The trial court (Judge Freedman) found the State experts credible, concluded appellant suffers a mental abnormality making him highly likely to reoffend, and continued STU commitment; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court could recommit appellant after the 2010 conditional discharge (law‑of‑the‑case / review limits)	2010 consent order established appellant was not highly likely to reoffend with conditions; subsequent recommitment was improper or required stronger proof	Review hearings assess current risk; prior consent does not bar reevaluation if evidence shows current high risk	Court may reevaluate current condition; substantial evidence supported recommitment
Whether the 1984 sexual‑contact conviction could serve as a predicate offense for SVPA commitment	1984 conviction is remote or unclear and should not justify recommitment	1984 sexual‑contact conviction qualifies as a predicate offense; remoteness is relevant but not dispositive	1984 conviction (and related offenses) can serve as predicate; remoteness alone does not bar commitment
Whether GPS requirement imposed at discharge violated Ex Post Facto (by adding punitive conditions)	GPS and Parole‑like conditions imposed in 2010 were punitive and retroactively increased punishment	SVPA discharge conditions are supervisory/conditional, subject to periodic review, and not an ex post facto punishment like SOMA in Riley	Distinguished Riley; temporary GPS supervision under SVPA not an ex post facto violation
Whether the court erred by crediting State experts and ignoring treatment failures/agency actions	State and STU "abandoned" appellant by failing to provide promised community treatment; expert opinions were speculative	Experts based opinions on appellant’s history, relapse, and assessments; treatment availability and violations are relevant to current risk	Appellate court defers to trial judge credibility findings; evidence supported experts and continued commitment

Key Cases Cited

In re Civil Commitment of J.M.B., 197 N.J. 563 (court must prove current difficulty controlling sexually harmful behavior)
In re Civil Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (State must prove by clear and convincing evidence high likelihood of sexual reoffense)
Riley v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 219 N.J. 270 (distinguishing punitive lifetime electronic monitoring under SOMA; ex post facto analysis)
In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 407 N.J. Super. 619 (appellate standard: exceedingly narrow review and deference to trial judge)
In re Civil Commitment of P.Z.H., 377 N.J. Super. 458 (remoteness of predicate offense may be relevant but not dispositive)