IN RE J.M

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] J.M. appeals from a trial court order denying his petition for discharge and continuing his commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. He argues the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior and remains a sexually dangerous individual. We conclude the trial court did not clearly err in denying J.M.'s petition for discharge and affirm the trial court's order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner