growth factors that the court missed his sitter in deciding whether to impose any prison sentence at all never mind anything about the minimum so when i talk about mr losses prior convictions and by the way he's had no recurring is reasonable disproportionate were excessive to charge to send mr watts to prison for eight years because he didn't understand the detailed requirements of the act because he didn't have the money were trying to violate the statute and no one has a list has any recurrence of sex offenses so to say that that person needs to go to prison for eight years that that person should  sports review merely because it exists and you know particularly we're talking about a statute very rightly or wrongly and imposes very serious schools are giving in this case there was some questionable statements of the wild so to put him in prison when his rationale an explanation because understanding while not a defense to the crime is it comply so he would he would crash with a friend or girlfriend and he would make sure he got back to his registry address he was wrong and should have meaning or call to make sure should he have while he's working these midnight shifts and should he have done something differently well sure we can all look back and say you could have done something different but it is his confusion which is similar to the confusion the court has pointed out in these cases result in a prison sentence where he is actively trying to comply so that is why i think the term of probation would have been reasonable in this case and the appropriate statutory relieved because it does is one thing that trial courts look at is they don't expect a defendant to be able to pay what they are incarcerated and then department of corrections so when they make a determination of what they're and from what i've experienced when i was in crime county they're usually very very understanding and i know at this point they're assessing a fee with the hopes that when he gets out he could pay but if the testimony that was provided to the court although it's kind of confusing the defense counsel said that if he is placed on probation we believe he'll be able to get a job and be able to pay the fee and the court then instead of asking to defend himself then relied on that i can't begin to go what was going on in his mind but it was typically because big spec once they get out they can get the job and pay so i think it would be appropriate for the case they generally are once again i can only speak from my prior experience but they generally are more concerned because they take sex offender registration very seriously and easily have an officer dedicated solely to doing now so they can keep track of them and they communicate well with the other counties too so if for instance they hear a lot of times it's word of mouth that they hear from someone else that they're defending it or the account is not registering like a supposed register or sometimes the curia periodically check up on with excuse me with their registered address if they happen to hear that it's not what they think it should be then they will call contact the jurisdiction for where they think they might be and see if they've registered their funding it triggers a more intense investigation and guessing that's probably what happened here but it's very typical  that's three misdemeanor public indecency offenses or a child sex offense they treat all of the registration the same because it's a separate offense if you fit if you violate your registration requirements that's its own  amazing i don't know how they got this but there was a recording where he's trying to find out about his reading and seems like one of the officers may have been just as confused as he was that is probably very accurate if an officer is not the designated sex offender registration officer they don't go to the training that the sex offender registration officers go to that's why i can come out on the defendant to make sure that he had argued that he had brought up that he had a printing disability he never raised that with her eye when she went over the conditions and they go over through they go through them down making sure they can you show each separate  i woud it to be sentence the way it is and whether or not he understood whether or not it's confusing whether or not officers or court personnel understand it goes more towards the guilt phase and he pled guilty to that so to then turn around and say well i'm pleading guilty but still i don't think it's fair because i don't agree with the sash it's very confusing crosses over into the constitutionality or at least borders it very closely what should be focused on i believe strongly in what the court i believe focused on was the p s i i and how many prior offenses he had a criminal was within the statutory range he said on the record that he considered the factors in that a mitigation aggravation p s i i everything including the financial burden on the state that was raised by the defendant and  cannot should not be raised as an issue because it many cases have come out saying that the this story is constitutional that the act is constitutional so to say that conviction i mean these were issues that will raised and discussed the original sentencing hearing and subsequent sentencing to so this is not a new issue it is simply developed through  percent certain that he was following the rules maybe that was to kill but it is confusing to understand home and not a good reason to send him to prison for eight years absolutely and that is something that this court should consider  confused as mr lies about the requirements should mr was followed up perhaps is his failure to do so reason to imprison him when he's working when he's trying to comply with the statute when he's trying to work on getting