concurring.
[¶ 23] Because of the sparse treatment of Mangelsen’s sexually predatory conduct in the Majority opinion, I believe it helpful to recite the district court’s findings here:
Mangelsen has conceded that the State has shown by clear and convincing evidence that he has engaged in sexually predatory conduct, as evidenced by his previous criminal convictions. See: Respondent’s Closing Argument, pg. 3. N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(9) defines “sexually predatory conduct” to include “engaging or attempting to engage in a sexual act or sexual contact with another individual, or causing or attempting to cause another individual to engage in a sexual act or sexual contact, if ... (4) the victim is less than fifteen years old;” ... or “(7) the victim is a minor and the actor is an adult ...” The Defendant’s *14prior criminal history includes convictions for Sexual Contact with a child less than 16 (South Dakota Court Order Suspending Imposition of Sentence was dated January 11, 2006) and Gross Sexual imposition for having sexual contact with a victim under the age of 15 years (Judgment was entered in Grand Forks District Court on November 6, 2007).
Mangelsen’s criminal record also includes the following: two Minor in Possession (2006); Theft of less than $250 (2006); burglary (2006); a Burglary conviction in Polk County, Minnesota and a Revocation of Probation in Minnesota; two convictions for False Information to Law Enforcement (11/6/07 and 8/17/10); a conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender (8/17/10); an Order out of South Dakota revoking Mangelsen’s Suspended Imposition of Sentence as he was charged with burglary in Polk County, Minnesota (1/12/07); an Order dated April 30, 2010 on a Petition for Revocation of Probation of Mangelsen’s probation entered in Grand Forks District Court returning Mangelsen to supervised probation with Mangelsen admitting to visiting a place frequented by minors and to failing to notify his PO of a new existing romantic relationship (Mangelsen was found touching female under her clothing at a public library and had in his possession a letter he had written to a woman with minor children seeking a romantic relationship); and a subsequent Order in the Grand Forks District Court case dated August 25,-2010 revoking Mangelsen’s probation with Mangelsen admitting to the allegations of failing to remain law abiding (convicted of Failing to Register as Sex Offender and False Information to Law Enforcement) and failing to notify of a change in his residence and misrepresenting his residence address.
Mangelsen was an adult when he committed the crimes of Gross Sexual Imposition With a Minor Under the age of 15 in North Dakota, and when he committed the crime of Sexual Contact With a Child Less than 16 years in South Dakota. The conduct of Mangelsen in each of these crimes meet the definition of “sexually predatory conduct”, as in one case the victim was less than 15 and in the other the victim was a minor and Man-gelsen was an adult. With regard to the sexual contact with child less than 16 years old, Mangelsen was 18 years old and his victims were 13 and 14-year-old females. Mangelsen touched the breast of the 13-year-old and touched the inside of the thigh of the 14-year-old. Dr. Lisota also testified that during the investigation of this crime, it was alleged that he touched the genital area of a 9-year-old girl over her clothing and attempted to kiss her. No charges were brought on this allegation. As to the gross sexual imposition conviction, Man-gelsen was 20 years old and had kissed and touched the buttocks of a 14-year-old girl.
[¶ 24] I agree the district court did not err in finding the State established by clear and convincing evidence that Mangel-sen is a sexually dangerous individual.
[¶ 25] Dale V. Sandstrom.