to life without possibility of parole at the time that he was sentenced he was given three consecutive sentences of twenty five years to life he was forty eight now unless he has the length of life that doesn't get you anywhere if in less the sentence is justified now we know from the press from precedent that simply neglecting through inadverten register isn't going to get you there right correct but that's not what happened here that's also correct you know your client willfully apparently took off and he took off without notifying anybody an y went to a different state and then he came back and instead of putting himself in a position where he could be readily discovered with his mother i believe it was  she was living in a trailer or something i'm not sure who it is the street address right he was living out of his car specifically to avoid detection in the only way he did get finally arrested was we have sex offender registration so that you don't have people who are presumptively dangerous in their propensities wandering around unsupervised in the community  interested in california protecting our citizens he comes back he has an address at his mother's house he does say that he leaves his belongings there the police are able to you have to verify that he's there he was there when he first that he was you know being a model citizen he clearly violated those two statutes he failed to register when he came back in two thousand and one and he any didn't register again in two thousand and two however i would argue with that with regard to the two thousand and one two i mean he is it's yes it's a longer period of time they may not know what he's doing but he's basically failing to register when he returns to take to california so again ok maybe twenty five years to life for that but this pretty clearly that it didn't think that in cases like this that this was a mere technical violation which is what i'm not saying it's a technical violation what i'm comparing it to is where there's an actual crime another words he didn't get picked up because he went out in committed another crime certainly not as another sex crime what he's picked up and given seventy five years to life for is failing to register failing to notify the police where he is when he comes back from alabama and my argument your honour's is that this is the sense of seventy five years to life is grossly disproportionate to the crimes he's actually committed sentences twenty five years to life might be permissible to sentence him for three separate violations under the same statute and then to give him consecutive seventy five years that's that's where and to protect that public protect the public from that risk he was required to register his whereabouts not only did he fail to register but he made repeated calculated decisions to avoid contact with law enforcement and for their be eligible for parole twenty five years after recess forty eight so twenty five plus forty eight is at age seventy three he's eligible for parole and of course eligibility for parole doesn't mean him personally it's a police officer yes he takes two young girls into his car on the pretense that he is a police officer picking them up for curfew violation violations he puts the younger one in the trunk that incident what we also know is that for instance i think you mentioned he was convicted as well of assault with a deadly weapon that was not pled unproven in this case because it's not a strike offense he admitted that with there was a there was a conviction now rising out of that his criminal history we know whether the trial court had had the evidence of the other crimes even if they weren't strike offenses before him and you know i don't know but i think we could tell from the probation report typically that that type of information would be included in the p that was the only other thing that was right i think the fundamental difference between it sounds like everyone is in agreement that a twenty five year life sentence is perfectly permissible and i think under uing we would have trouble reaching a different conclusion  theft we have three failures to register and i would like to address counsel's argument that it's essentially a continuing course of conduct it's not in this particular case each violation of two ninety was tied to a different move his first count is tied to his move out of state and his family should notify officials that he was leaving the state his second count is tied to his move back into the state and his failure to notify officials that he was back in california he moved again the landlord testified that when he first came back to california from alabama he moved into the an address on alexander street and then he moves back to the cox street address which is what he ultimately uses on his employment application  that's a separate move which he again failed to register so it's not as though he's staying in the same place a place where someone could find him the argument that law enforcement could have found him at any time at this cost street address is belied by the record interviewed mother that the parole officer made seven trips to the cock street address after the initial meeting with the defendant trying to find him and could never find him at that address the look here's a guy who committed some pretty horrific crimes i don't think anybody would i would hope no one would dispute that and he serves fourteen years which is not a small amount of time but in comparison to what he now g for not committing any other substantive offense but the failure to register offenses if you will he gets life in prison that's the argument that that is the argument and i think the reasoning if we look at the criminal history and what human talked about was you know that the notion that the state has an interest an incapacitating habitual offenders here is even more egregious we're not talking about incapacitating eighty eight petty registered the way he perfectly appropriately you did movie register if you did movie registered appropriately so you don't have any of those issues but while these registered he goes crosby was the notion that you know there are these sort of passive harmless violations of the sex offender registration office where gonzalez registered nine months prior and three months after there was never a period of time where law enforcement had difficulty finding him that's entirely different here and in addition to the eight attempts to find him at his registered address he changed his name when he moved to alabama he assumed a new identity and changed it again when he moved back into california on top of that as your honor all very clear that if reasonable minds can differ about whether this is an appropriate sentence or inappropriate sense it's not a violation of the eighth amendment and when we start talking about twenty five to life versus fifty to life what we're what we're essentially asking california to do is to bring it  strict proportionality to its crimes and the cases have been clear that strict proportionality is not required only the sentences that qualify as grossly disproportionate are those that violate the eighth amendment so parsing between a term of years where there's a possibility of parole but no right to parole and no you know definitive release date you're asking california to bring in sentences within this notion of strict proportionality which the eighth amendment does not require here he committed three separate offenses sophisticated evasion of law enforcement which is california's only manner of protecting the public against a violent sex offender and for those three separate offenses tied to three separate moves he was punished fairly clear that california takes this very very seriously and that and that when we don't have we have are not your technical violations but california will punish them severely and i have no problem with that your honour's and i realize that  in gonzales they talked about it being a technical violation but i also think they looked at the fact that it was twenty five to life and it was also under def the standard of deference to the california court i don't have a problem  three separate violations but what we are saying is that when you have a regulatory violation all the it is not a technical violation a regulatory violation that serves  if the circumstances play out result severe harm to the public here's a bit of a individual who committed a very violent series of years in prison he has been punished and in terms of a regulatory crime if i sell adultery or adulterated food and somebody eats it they're going to be harmed he did not harm anybody by not being registered if he is then in fact going out and committed another crime and the police wonder know where to find him it would have been helpful to have him be registered but short of him not being registered there was no specific public harm about i mean the government pointed out that he had two crimes he left without telling me came back without telling him well you know my argument being that's pretty much the same act even a come back and then he stayed without telling ok and then he stay