The evidence was sufficient to uphold a conviction under Penal Code section 290 where the defendant had twice submitted an incorrect address under penalty of perjury, notwithstanding the fact that the second submission involved only an error of two digits. Because the California Supreme Court has held that merely forgetting to register is not a defense to a charge under section 290, it follows that merely forgetting one’s correct address is also not a defense to that charge. The court further held that the corpus delicti rule does not apply where the defendant’s extrajudicial statements constitute the crime itself. The court reversed the defendant’s convictions under section 288(a) on counts where he had also been convicted under section 288(b), and agreed with the Attorney General that the defendant should have been sentenced under the one-strike law rather than under the two-strike provisions of the three-strike law, and thus remanded for resentencing.