People v. Neighbors CA2/6

Filed 3/16/21 P. v. Neighbors CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B303512 (Super. Ct. No. 19PT-00933) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MARK NEIGHBORS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mark Neighbors appeals a judgment committing him for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under Penal Code section 2962.1 We conclude, among other things, that Neighbors’s crime of annoying or molesting a child (§ 647.6, subd. (c)(2)), a felony, based on the facts of this case, does not constitute conduct that falls within the MDO commitment criteria. We reverse.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTS Neighbors was convicted of felony annoying or molesting a child. (§ 647.6, subd. (c)(2).) He was sentenced to four years in state prison. On October 1, 2019, after the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determined Neighbors met the criteria for MDO commitment, Neighbors filed a petition for appointment of counsel and a hearing. The superior court appointed counsel. Neighbors waived his right to a jury trial. At trial, Kevin Perry, a clinical psychologist for the Department of State Hospitals, testified Neighbors has a severe mental disorder – a severe bipolar disorder with “psychotic features.” He has delusional beliefs about being a CIA or federal agent. Neighbors’s severe mental disorder was an aggravating factor in his felony commitment offense of annoying or molesting a child. (§ 647.6, subd. (c)(2).) Neighbors was a registered child sex offender who went to an elementary school. He was a sex offender and not authorized to be near a school without permission of school authorities. He approached two children. Neighbors asked them if they wanted money. He then “approached a 12-year-old-boy in front” of the school. He stepped in front of that child who was on a skateboard, blocking the child’s path. Neighbors stuck his hand out. He asked the boy if he wanted change. When Neighbors saw that the child’s mother was approaching, he put his hands in his pockets. The child started to skate toward the school. Neighbors followed in that direction, until the child’s mother called out at Neighbors. He then walked in the opposite direction. The child’s mother was frightened by Neighbors’s conduct.