In People v. Thompson (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 459, a court for the first time used the language which Phillips has focused on to support his claim that Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1) requires that the defendant target a specific child. In Thompson, the defendant was convicted under Penal Code section 647.6 for driving slowly by a 12-year-old bicyclist repeatedly while making facial and hand gestures. On appeal, before the Appellate Division of the Kern County Superior Court and in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, the defendant claimed that sufficient evidence did not support his conviction because his conduct could not be considered lewd or obscene. (206 Cal.App.3d at p. 463.) Both the Court of Appeal and the appellate division disagreed. The Fifth District in describing the holding of the appellate division, wrote: "The defendant's acts constituted an annoyance of the minor; and section 647a did not require the specific act of annoying to be lewd or obscene. The appellate division reasoned the section only requires proof of articulable, objective acts which would cause a normal person to be unhesitatingly irritated, provided the acts are motivated by an abnormal or unnatural sexual interest in the child victim." (Id. at p. 465.) Several paragraphs later in the opinion, the Fifth District cited Gladys as supportive and characterized footnote 24 of the Gladys opinion as stating: "the Gladys court went on to reaffirm the requirement that the acts be motivated by an abnormal sexual intent toward the child victim." (Ibid., )