Filed 7/20/22 P. v. Greene CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARCELLUS GREENE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B315882

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. ZM027029)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Lindsay Boyd, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

Marcellus Greene appeals from a commitment order

classifying him as a sexually violent predator and committing 

him to the State Department of State Hospitals (SDSH), under 

the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code,

1

§ 6600 et seq.), for an indeterminate term. On appeal, Greene

argues that his commitment cannot stand because there was 

insufficient evidence that he suffers from a severe mental 

disorder that predisposes him to commit sexually violent 

predatory crimes if released. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

I. The Act

The Act “allows for the involuntary commitment of certain 

convicted sex offenders, whose diagnosed mental disorders make 

them likely to reoffend if released at the end of their prison 

terms.” (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 235.) A 

sexually violent predator (SVP) is “a person who has been 

convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims 

and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person 

a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that 

he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.”

(§ 6600, subd. (a)(1).) Further, the offender’s future sexually 

violent criminal behavior must be “predatory” in nature (People v. 

Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179, 1186), meaning that it is 

“directed toward a stranger, a person of casual acquaintance with 

whom no substantial relationship exists, or an individual with 

whom a relationship has been established or promoted for the 

primary purpose of victimization.” (§ 6600, subd. (e).) 

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

A person who is declared an SVP is committed to the SDSH 

for treatment. (§ 6604.) The Act is “not punitive in purpose or 

effect” (People v. Yartz (2005) 37 Cal.4th 529, 535), and a 

commitment proceeding under the Act is a “ ‘special proceeding of 

a civil nature.’ ” (Id. at p. 536.) To support a person’s 

commitment under the Act, the People must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the person is an SVP. (§ 6604; Cooley v. 

Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 246.)

II. Greene’s underlying offense

In 1996, Greene pleaded no contest to a violation of Penal 

Code section 289, sexual penetration with a foreign object with 

force or violence. The conviction stemmed from a July 1996 

incident that began when the victim was on the phone and 

Greene had a telephone operator interrupt the victim’s call. After 

the victim answered, Greene offered her candy, and she went 

over to his house. When she entered, Greene pulled down her 

underwear and she attempted to fight him off. She continued to 

fight and scream, and Greene turned up the music that he was 

playing. Greene threatened to anally penetrate her, but instead 

grabbed her by the throat and forced his penis into her vagina. 

Prior to doing so, Greene refused the victim’s request that he use 

a condom. The victim left Greene’s house and told a friend what 

had happened. The friend called the police. 

III. The SVP proceedings

On July 1, 2015, the district attorney petitioned to commit 

Greene as an SVP. The trial court found probable cause to 

believe that Greene was an SVP and ordered a trial. 

After Greene waived a trial by jury, a bench trial was held 

in September and October of 2021. Dr. Tricia Busby and 
4

Dr. Christopher Matosich testified for the prosecution,2 and 

Dr. G. Preston Sims and Greene testified for the defense. 

A. The People’s expert testimony

1. Dr. Busby

Dr. Busby, a SDSH forensic evaluator, evaluated Greene. 

Dr. Busby reviewed the 1996 police report from the commitment 

offense, the abstract of judgment, Greene’s rap sheet, state 

hospital treatment records, and the preliminary hearing 

transcript. She attempted to interview Greene multiple times 

but was unable to do so because he was considered dangerous 

and was confined to his unit. 

Dr. Busby diagnosed Greene with exhibitionist disorder 

(i.e., becoming aroused by exposing oneself to unsuspecting 

strangers), schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, antisocial 

personality disorder, and substance abuse disorder. The 

exhibitionist disorder diagnosis was premised upon a pattern of 

behavior beginning in 2007 of Greene exposing himself to 

unsuspecting female correctional staff, and masturbating while 

looking at them. Greene was convicted of indecent exposure in 

2012 and 2018 based upon two of these incidents, one in prison 

and the other in the state hospital.

Greene’s schizoaffective disorder diagnosis involved 

symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized 

behavior. More specifically, Greene called himself King 

Marcellus and an “Afrikan Warrior,” and also displayed 

2 During the testimony, Greene, who appeared remotely, 

was seen walking around, exercising, or breathing loudly. At one 

point, Greene interrupted Dr. Busby’s testimony, exclaiming

“[t]his is fucking bullshit.” 
5

disorganized speech and manic symptoms such as agitation, 

depression, and a decreased need for sleep. 

Greene’s antisocial personality disorder involved a lack of 

empathy and disregard for lawful behavior beginning before 

Greene turned 15. Greene reported that at age 9, he received 

stolen property, and between 14 and 15, he trespassed several 

times. Greene’s adult criminal history consisted of arrests for 

assault and exhibitionist behaviors. His rule violations while 

incarcerated were further manifestations of his antisocial 

personality disorder.

Greene’s substance abuse disorders, pertaining to alcohol 

and cocaine, stemmed from his being found in possession of 

controlled substances while incarcerated, including prison-made 

alcohol, a straw and some white powder, and pills that may not 

have belonged to him.

These diagnoses, according to Dr. Busby, predisposed 

Greene to sexually violent behavior because he continued to act 

out sexually on an almost daily basis. Dr. Busby viewed Greene’s 

behavior, including violating the rights of correctional staff, to 

unwanted letters and exposing behavior, as a continuation of his 

conduct surrounding the commitment offense, which the 

controlled environment only tempered. That Greene was not 

violent during these institutional encounters did not affect Dr. 

Busby’s diagnosis of exhibitionist disorder. 

Dr. Busby applied the Static-99R, an actuarial assessment 

of sexual offense risk that identifies risk factors found to be 

significantly associated with sexual recidivism. She obtained a 

score of seven for Greene, which indicated he was a high risk for 

sexual reoffense, with a 31 percent chance of reoffending within 

five years, and a 43 percent chance within 10 years. Dr. Busby 
6

also applied a test that assessed dynamic risk factors, or risks 

that could be improved or mitigated with appropriate behavior 

and treatment. Greene was assessed at 20, meaning that he was 

in a high-needs treatment group. However, Greene did not 

partake in the treatment offered to him in the state hospital. 

Finally, Dr. Busby considered protective factors that might have 

reduced Greene’s likelihood of recidivism, including advanced 

age, completion of sex offender treatment, and medical 

conditions.

Taking these factors together, and particularly in light of 

Greene’s multiple diagnoses and his refusals to learn coping 

skills for his diagnoses through treatment, Dr. Busby concluded 

that Greene was likely to reoffend in a sexually violent predatory 

manner in the community. Dr. Busby explained that Greene’s 

refusal to avail himself of treatment in custody rendered him 

unlikely to seek treatment at liberty. Greene’s sexually 

aggressive behavior, a product of his schizoaffective disorder, his 

use of alcohol and drugs while in custody, and statements that he 

gets triggered by women, wishing to expose himself to staff in 

situations where they would not expect it, likewise supported Dr. 

Busby’s conclusions. 

Dr. Busby noted that Greene’s qualifying offense was 

predatory because he sought the victim out and enticed her to 

come over. Nonetheless, she acknowledged that, according to the 

preliminary hearing transcript, Greene and the victim had a 

prior relationship, including having consensual sex on one 

occasion, and that the victim knew where Greene lived and 

voluntarily came to his residence.
7

2. Dr. Matosich

Dr. Matosich, a clinical forensic psychologist who had 

completed over 1,200 SVP evaluations, conducted SVP 

evaluations on Greene in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021, and 

interviewed him in 2015 and 2021. Before completing his 

evaluations, Dr. Matosich reviews probation and police reports, 

legal records, and institutional mental health and behavioral 

records, and he reviewed some of those records for Greene. 

During Dr. Matosich’s 2015 interview, Greene recalled that 

his first sexual contact, at age 11 or 12, “opened the floodgate” 

and was followed by more sexual encounters, two of which were 

in prison. Greene admitted to 17 rule violations since 2012, but

denied victimizing anyone in prison. Most of his violations were 

for masturbating publicly or indecent exposure, but he was also 

accused of writing a love letter to a female correctional staff 

member, in which he invited her to take a bubble bath with him. 

Greene attributed his incidents to his desire to explore his sexual 

fantasies, and that seeing a ponytailed woman chewing 

bubblegum made him horny. 

When asked about fulfilling his sexual needs while in 

custody versus in the community, Greene stated it was his right 

to masturbate to prevent prostate cancer. Greene used 

pornography while in custody. According to Greene, exposing 

himself was his own right and his own business. He got an 

adrenaline rush from doing so, finding it “exciting” to surprise 

someone by masturbating, claiming that he is in his “prime” 

when doing so. Greene also claimed that officers had encouraged 

him to expose himself while in custody. 

Greene recalled that he was first arrested at age nine for 

receiving a stolen VCR. Greene was arrested for trespassing on 
8

city property at ages 13 and 14, and again at 18. In 2002, Greene 

received an additional eight-year sentence for having a weapon in 

prison. 

Greene stated that he was wrongfully convicted because of 

the racism surrounding the O.J. Simpson case. Greene planned 

to take legal action against the state based upon his illegal 

incarceration and against prison officers for refusing to move him 

away from predatory prisoners and conducting illegal strip 

searches. He also planned to obtain his undergraduate and law 

degrees, open his own law firm as a way to assist people with 

publishing poetry, and to live until age 112. Greene also stated

he was in a romantic relationship with a woman he had not yet

physically met. 

Dr. Matosich interviewed Greene again in 2021. At the 

time, Greene was going by the name “Marvelous Afrikan 

Warrior.” He had just been removed from the state hospital to 

prison for exposing himself. Greene stated he was sexually 

frustrated, and his overall presentation was pressured and rapid. 

His speech was unfocused and hard to follow. 

Based upon these facts, Dr. Matosich diagnosed Greene 

with other specified paraphilic disorder, nonconsent, meaning 

that Greene had frequent fantasies, urges, and behaviors 

involving sexual activity with nonconsenting individuals, 

children, or objects. Although this diagnosis was required to be 

present for at least six months, and Greene’s diagnosis stemmed 

from the commitment offense, Dr. Matosich believed that 

Greene’s spontaneous statement in 2015 that he enjoys

controlling his partner uniquely qualified him. 

Dr. Matosich also diagnosed Greene with exhibitionistic 

disorder in a controlled environment, in which an individual 
9

experiences excitement or pleasure from surprising strangers 

with sexual behavior. Dr. Matosich attributed this to Greene’s 

persistent rule violations and to his statements that surprising 

individuals as he is masturbating, both in custody and the 

community, was arousing to him. 

Dr. Matosich further diagnosed Greene with bipolar 

disorder, moderate, with a recent episode of hypomania. Greene’s 

loud and hostile tone, and specifically his incoherent thoughts 

and speech, during the two interviews accounted for this 

diagnosis. With respect to the 2021 interview, Dr. Matosich 

observed that Greene suffered from grandiosity within his bipolar 

condition and had goals and plans that were unrealistic or 

delusional. For example, Greene claimed that director Ava 

DuVernay would write a movie about his life and that he would 

have $5 million to donate. 

Greene also met the criteria for antisocial personality 

disorder on account of his early onset of criminal behavior and 

inability to conform to community and institutional standards. 

Finally, Dr. Matosich diagnosed Greene with cocaine use 

disorder, moderate, in sustained remission in a controlled 

environment. 

In Dr. Matosich’s opinion, these diagnoses, working 

together, predispose Greene to sexually violent predatory 

criminal behavior. In particular, Greene’s paraphilic disorder 

had become more severe because of issues related to his bipolar 

disorder and the need to express himself through exposure and 

anti-social personality characteristics and traits. Thus, although 

each disorder, standing alone, would constitute a qualifying 

diagnosis, the combination of those disorders created a greater 

risk for acting on Greene’s paraphilic tendencies, urges, and 
10

behaviors, and it was difficult to separate them out as causes for 

Greene’s behavior. 

Dr. Matosich also deployed the Static-99R, and scored 

Greene an “eight,” placing him in the “well-above average” 

category of risk for reoffending. Dr. Matosich also utilized the 

structured risk assessment, which measured dynamic variables 

that are changeable through treatment and other interventions. 

Greene scored above “3,” placing him in the high-risk group. This 

scoring included consideration of Greene’s lack of emotionally 

intimate or continuous relationships with adults, his lack of 

emotional congruence with children, and his callousness and 

degree of psychopathy. 

These reasons, combined with Greene’s lack of insight and 

participation in treatment, formed the basis for Dr. Matosich’s 

conclusion that Greene was likely to engage in sexually violent 

predatory criminal behavior in the community and needed to stay 

in a secured facility. Greene continued to be preoccupied with 

sexual behavior and believed he was entitled to follow through on 

his urges. He was more prone to sexually violent predatory 

behavior, rather than mere exhibitionism, in the community 

because of the severity of his sexual deviances, as well as his 

refusing treatment to address his delusions and grandiosity, 

entitlement, and aggression. Based on these factors, and the 

unique callousness and predatory nature of the commitment

offense,3 Dr. Matosich concluded that Greene would act 

consistent with the qualifying offense without treatment. 

3 Like Dr. Busby, Dr. Matosich concluded the commitment

offense was predatory, even though Greene and the victim had a 

previous relationship, including having sex one time before the 
11

B. The defense case

1. Dr. Sims

Dr. Sims, an SDSH clinical and forensic psychologist, had 

conducted over 1,200 evaluations and testified approximately 

100 times as an expert, 95 percent of the time for the prosecution. 

Dr. Sims first evaluated Greene in 2015, reviewing several 

case documents and interviewing him for 90 minutes. During 

that interview, Greene denied the commitment offense, as well as 

any substance abuse and mental health issues. Greene claimed 

that he gave the victim her first penetrating orgasm. Dr. Sims 

also evaluated Greene in 2021, reviewing previous evaluations, 

rule violation reports, and hospital records and Greene’s writings 

before doing so.

After both evaluations, Dr. Sims concluded that Greene had

mental disorders that predispose him to sexual criminal 

behavior, but not sexually violent or predatory acts. Specifically, 

Dr. Sims diagnosed Greene with exhibitionistic disorder, 

schizoaffective disorder, cocaine and alcohol use disorders, and 

antisocial personality disorder.

Exhibitionistic disorder, Dr. Sims described, involves a 

sexual interest in exposing one’s genitals to unsuspecting persons 

and actually doing so, causing interpersonal difficulty. Greene 

repeatedly engaged in such behavior, but Dr. Sims did not 

consider it sexually violent because it does not involve physical 

contact. 

Schizoaffective disorder combines the symptoms of 

schizophrenia and mood disorders such as depression or mania. 

incident, and even though the victim voluntarily came to 

Greene’s residence at his invitation.
12

Though Dr. Sims did not observe any such evidence during his 

2015 interview, he relied on hospital records describing 

symptoms that Greene exhibited matching that diagnosis, 

including delusions, depression, mania, and disorganized 

thoughts and speech. Symptoms were also described in the 

transcript of Dr. Matosich’s 2021 interview. 

Despite these diagnoses, however, Dr. Sims did not believe 

that any criminal sexual acts by Greene would be violent or 

predatory. This was because the vast majority of Greene’s 

criminal sexual behavior were acts of indecent exposure, having 

only committed one sexually violent predatory offense in 1996. 

Dr. Sims noted that the majority of sex offenders have a 

relatively low risk of sexually reoffending, in part because they 

are motivated to stay out of prison. Though Greene had been

continuously incarcerated or institutionalized since his 1996 

conviction, he could have committed a contact offense in prison or 

the hospital, but had not done so, instead merely exposing 

himself to various staff members. Because most persons do not 

reoffend after their initial incarceration, Dr. Sims opined that 

there is no reason to say with any degree of certainty that Greene 

would similarly reoffend. Moreover, if a person is sexually 

aroused based on lack of consent, that person would be expected 

to have reoffended after receiving a criminal sanction, which was 

not the case with Greene. 

Dr. Sims evaluated Greene using the Static-99R, Static2002R, and two dynamic instruments, the Structured Risk 

Assessment Forensic Version, and the Hare Psychopathy 

Checklist (also known as the PCLR). Greene received a “seven” 

on both the Static-99R and Static-2002R, placing him in the “well 

above average” risk category, or the highest level of possible 
13

recidivism risk. His structured risk assessment score was 3.3, 

placing him in the highest risk category. Greene’s PCLR score 

was in the higher average range (22.1 out of 40 points). In 

Dr. Sims’s view, however, these instruments had limited value in 

assessing whether one qualifies as an SVP, because they measure 

only sexual recidivism generally, rather than the risk of 

committing sexually violent offenses. 

This consideration, combined with Greene’s only having 

committed a single sexually violent predatory offense in 1996, 

suggested that he was not a serious and well-founded risk for 

committing a violent predatory sexual offense in the future. 

Dr. Sims acknowledged, however, that he could not recall 

submitting an evaluation supporting an SVP finding where the 

subject only had one sexually violent offense. Dr. Sims further 

conceded that Greene remained at high risk of committing a 

nonviolent sexual offense, and was unlikely to pursue treatment 

upon release. 

2. Greene

Greene began his testimony stating, “I, marvelous Afrikan 

Warrior, am making a special limited appearance on behalf of the 

defendant, who is right here, Marcellus Alexander Greene, Sr.” 

Greene met the victim while they were enrolled in a 

substance abuse program. The victim called Greene the first 

night she got out of the program, and they went out on a date 

that ended in consensual sex.

Five days later, the night of the incident, Greene used an 

emergency breakthrough to tell her he had candy for her. When 

the victim arrived, Greene said he would meet her in the 

bedroom, where the candy was located. The victim agreed and 

told Greene “[d]on’t take long.”
14

In the bedroom, Greene, who had a bad day because he was 

found academically ineligible at school, attempted to kiss the 

victim. When she refused, he told her he would masturbate 

instead. As Greene started to ejaculate, the victim told him that 

she wanted to suck his penis, but Greene refused because she 

didn’t want to have sex earlier. He then pushed her off the bed, 

finished ejaculating, and went into the bathroom. Greene denied 

having sex with the victim, but acknowledged holding her down 

by the neck as he was masturbating. 

Greene denied other incidents with nonconsenting sexual 

partners, being aroused by having nonconsenting partners, or 

that he said as much to Dr. Matosich. No crime occurred in 1996; 

rather, his 1996 counsel coerced his plea. 

Greene admitted to masturbating and exposing himself in 

the presence of institutional staff, but denied being turned on by 

it, claiming that he and other prisoners did so to identify the 

“good” staff members, and that it was an “adrenaline rush.” 

Greene acknowledged refusing treatment while institutionalized, 

calling it a “farc[e]” and reasoning that he did not have sex with 

children. He did, however, participate in some sex offender

treatment prior to the pandemic. 

Upon release, Greene planned to reside in South Carolina

with his future wife and engage in sex offender treatment there. 

During the two months in his current unit, he had not engaged in 

any indecent exposures. He denied having a sexual disorder or 

that he would sexually act out while at liberty, explaining that he 

will have a “loving wife that’s waiting for me.” While 

acknowledging his prior cocaine addiction, he disavowed using 

alcohol or any current addiction, and did not anticipate substance 

abuse problems after being released. 
15

C. The trial court’s SVP finding and commitment

order

After hearing argument from counsel, the trial court issued 

its finding and commitment order. The court held that the 

People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Greene

had been convicted of a sexually violent offense; (2) Greene had

diagnosed mental disorders, and, as a result, poses a danger to 

the health and safety of others because it is likely that he will 

engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior; and (3) it 

was necessary to keep Greene in custody to ensure the health and 

safety of others. 

Addressing whether Greene’s diagnoses predispose him to 

sexually violent predatory criminal behavior, the trial court

found the testimony of Dr. Busby and Dr. Matosich persuasive 

based on the thoroughness of their evaluations, interviews, and 

review of underlying documents. Though acknowledging Dr. 

Sims’s extensive qualifications, the trial court found his 

testimony less credible in light of his reluctance to qualify an 

individual as a SVP without a repeat offense. 

The trial court declared Greene an SVP and committed him 

to the state hospital for an indeterminate term. Greene timely 

appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Greene acknowledges that the People demonstrated beyond 

a reasonable doubt that his severe mental disorders predispose 

him to commit criminal sexual acts, but contends that reversal is 

nonetheless required because the People failed to show that such 

acts will be violent and predatory. Though two analytically 

distinct arguments, Greene’s complaints, boiled down, are alike: 

the trial court afforded undue weight to—or otherwise 
16

misconstrued—certain facts of the decades-old commitment

offense in concluding that the People met their burden as to these 

prongs. Contrary to Greene’s contentions, the People’s expert 

testimony, together with the actuarial tests they performed,

Greene’s statements, conduct in custody, and refusals of 

treatment, among other considerations, provide substantial 

evidence to support the trial court’s findings.

I. Standard of review

“In reviewing the evidence sufficient to support a 

commitment under section 6600, ‘courts apply the same test as 

for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal 

conviction.’ [Citation.] ‘Thus, [the appellate] court must review 

the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to 

determine whether substantial evidence supports the 

determination below. [Citation.] To be substantial, the evidence 

must be “ ‘of ponderable legal significance . . . reasonable in 

nature, credible and of solid value.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Carlin (2007) 

150 Cal.App.4th 322, 333.)

Further, “ ‘it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or 

jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or 

falsity of the facts on which that determination depends. 

[Citation.] Thus, if the verdict is supported by substantial 

evidence, we must accord due deference to the trier of fact and 

not substitute our evaluation of a witness’s credibility for that of 

the fact finder.’ [Citation.] This is true even in the context of 

expert witness testimony.” (People v. Poulsom (2013)
17

213 Cal.App.4th 501, 518; accord People v. Sumahit (2005) 

128 Cal.App.4th 347, 352.)4

II. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s 

determination that Greene’s mental disorders 

predispose him to violent and predatory criminal

sexual acts.

As noted, an SVP adjudication requires a diagnosed mental 

disorder that renders one likely to engage in sexually violent and 

predatory criminal behavior. Substantial evidence supports the 

trial court’s conclusion that the “violent” and “predatory”

requirements were satisfied here.

All three experts—including the defense expert—diagnosed

Greene with mental disorders that, in their totality, predisposed 

him to committing another sex offense. Their opinions departed

only on the matter of whether such offense would be violent and 

predatory. Greene primarily contends that the trial court erred 

in concluding any future criminal acts would be violent and 

predatory by relying exclusively on the facts of Greene’s 

commitment offense and diagnoses. The record belies that 

assertion. 

For example, Dr. Busby’s diagnoses of exhibitionist 

disorder, schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder, 

and substance abuse disorders predisposed Greene to sexually 

violent and predatory behavior because he continued to act out in 

a sexual manner on a near daily basis. That Greene’s 

institutional misconduct, a product of his schizoaffective disorder 

and antisocial personality disorder, was not violent or hands-on

4 We reject Greene’s implication that we are required to 

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.
18

did not alter her opinion because the controlled environment 

tempered his behavior. Dr. Busby’s conclusions were premised 

upon her consideration of extensive documentation relating to 

both the commitment offense and Greene’s subsequent history, 

including his refusals of treatment, his substance abuse while in 

custody, and his statements that women trigger his desire to 

surprise them by exposing himself. 

Dr. Matosich similarly concluded, after review of extensive 

documents and interviews with Greene, that Greene suffered 

from other specified paraphilic disorder, exhibitionist disorder, 

bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and cocaine use 

disorder. These present mental health diagnoses rendered him

prone to violent conduct, rather than mere exhibitionism, because 

of the severity of his sexual deviances and preoccupations, and 

his refusing to accept treatment to address his delusions and 

grandiosity, entitlement, and aggression. These diagnoses and 

clinical observations, combined with the uniquely callous nature 

of the commitment offense, led Dr. Matosich to conclude Greene 

would similarly reoffend if released without treatment. 

After interviewing Greene and reviewing numerous case 

and institutional documents, Dr. Sims concurred with the 

diagnoses of exhibitionist disorder, schizoaffective disorder, 

cocaine and alcohol use disorder, antisocial personality disorder, 

and further agreed that these predisposed Greene to commit 

criminal sexual acts. Nonetheless, because most of Greene’s past 

sexual misconduct was not violent, Sims was uncertain that 

Greene would reoffend in a violent and predatory manner. Still,

Dr. Sims joined Dr. Busby and Dr. Matosich in concluding that 
19

Greene was in the high range of risk of reoffending based on his

use of actuarial tools and analyses of dynamic risks.5

As such, the multiple clinical evaluations, the results of 

several standardized tests, and the evidence of Greene’s conduct 

while confined (ranging from additional sex offenses to refusing 

treatment), supported the trial court’s conclusion that Greene 

posed a present risk of sexually violent recidivism. (§ 6600, 

subd. (3) [evidence of “currently diagnosed mental disorder” 

rendering one likely to engage in sexually violent criminal 

behavior is required].) Indeed, as Greene acknowledges, the trial 

court afforded extensive consideration to his lack of a contact

offense in custody, noting that he was “not completely unable but 

far less able” to engage in sexually violent offenses. The court 

thus implicitly credited Dr. Busby’s reasoned prognosis, echoed

on the whole by Dr. Matosich, that Greene was likely to violently 

reoffend irrespective of the lack of additional sexually violent 

misconduct over Dr. Sims’s contrary conclusion. (See People v. 

Sumahit, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 353 [prognosis often must 

account for more mild misbehavior in “controlled hospital 

environment”].)

Greene’s argument, therefore, amounts to an invitation to 

reweigh the evidence, which “confuses our task in a substantial 

evidence review.” (People v. Poulsom, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 526.) Because the test is only whether there is substantial 

5 While Greene correctly asserts that these tools measure 

generalized sexual conduct, rather than violent recidivism, they 

are nonetheless commonly utilized devices that, when considered 

together with other evidence of the kind presented here, courts 

have accepted as predictive of violent sexual behavior. (People v. 

Roa (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 428, 445.) 
20

evidence supporting the factfinder’s conclusions, we are not 

concerned with contrary evidence or inferences that a party urges 

should have been drawn from that evidence. (Id. at p. 527.) 

Dr. Sims’s testimony was found not credible by the trial court

because he was hesitant to qualify an individual as an SVP

without a repeat offense. We “are not free to reweigh or 

reinterpret the evidence.” (People v. Mercer (1999) 

70 Cal.App.4th 463, 466–467.) 

Nor do we fault the trial court’s conclusion that any future 

criminal behavior was likely to be predatory, i.e., “directed 

toward a stranger, a person of casual acquaintance with whom no 

substantial relationship exists, or an individual with whom a 

relationship has been established or promoted for the primary 

purpose of victimization.” (§ 6600, subd. (e).) Greene seeks to

undermine that holding by arguing that the commitment offense 

was not predatory, and, in any event, occurred far too long ago to 

have the heavy predictive value that the trial court and expert 

witnesses allegedly afforded it. These arguments are 

unconvincing. 

First, it is well established that the commitment offense 

need not be a predatory act. (People v. Torres (2001) 25 Cal.4th

680, 684 [spousal rape would rarely be predatory under the 

Act].)6 Second, Greene’s argument suffers from the same 

6 We therefore need not reach the issue, but Greene’s claim 

that the commitment offense was not predatory is dubious. 

Greene and the victim met just two months before the incident, 

having gone on one date that ended in consensual sex a mere five 

days prior the incident. The incident began with Greene using an 

emergency breakthrough call to coerce the victim to come to his 

house with candy. Because this inquiry focuses upon whether 
21

infirmity outlined above: the court had a far more expansive 

record before it than merely the facts of the commitment offense. 

Accounting for the testimony of two experts, the results of 

the tests they conducted, Greene’s statements, as well as his 

conduct in custody, there was substantial evidence for the 

conclusion that any further offenses were likely to be predatory. 

(See People v. Orey (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 529, 563 [sufficient 

evidence where jury relied on testimony of two experts and 

defendant’s refusal of treatment].) Considering Greene’s sexual 

aggression toward unsuspecting facility personnel and his 

statements that the surprise nature of those interactions 

motivated his actions, the conclusion that Greene would push the 

envelope without supervision had ample evidentiary support. 

(See People v. Sumahit, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 353.) 

Greene’s refusals of treatment only buttressed the conclusion 

that he lacked any structure for controlling his impulses upon 

release (see People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 

888, 929 [noncompliance with treatment indicative of lack of 

preparedness to voluntarily control impulses upon release]), and 

potential victims could become “aware of the defendant’s status 

as a sex offender” (People v. Hurtado, supra, 28 Cal.4th at 

pp. 1187–1188), the brief period of Greene’s interactions with the 

victim—the vast majority of which was confined to a 

rehabilitation center—suggests that Greene and the victim were 

at most “casual acquaintance[s] with whom no substantial 

relationship exists” (§ 6600, subd. (e)). Thus, Greene’s further 

attempt to cast doubt upon the testimony of the prosecution’s 

experts by arguing they failed to fully consider Greene’s 

relationship with the victim is not just an improper request to 

reweigh the evidence (People v. Mercer, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 466–467), but a meritless one.
22

his outbursts and unbalanced testimony during the trial 

proceedings did not aid his cause.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the order, we

are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s 

findings.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

KIM, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.