The characterization of Penal Code section 290, failure to register as a sex offender, as a continuing offense does not mean that a defendant could not be convicted of new and separate violations if he continues to ignore the law. Every time the registrant moves, a new registration requirement is triggered and continues indefinitely and overlaps with the one before. Appellant was subject to the requirement to register as a sex offender based on a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). In 2006, police in Palo Alto found that he was no longer living at his registered address and he was not at an alternate address; a warrant was issued in August, 2006 for a failure to register multiple addresses and failure to inform law enforcement of a change in address. (Now Pen. Code, sec. 290.010 and 290.013.) His subsequent travels to New York and Florida resulted in charges under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). After service of his federal sentence, he was arrested on the California charges. A motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds was denied and that ruling was upheld on appeal. California’s double jeopardy protection and Penal Code sections 656 and 793 did not preclude the state prosecution. The conduct alleged in the state complaint was not embraced by the federal indictment. Also, SORNA did not go into effect until July, 2006. The conduct alleged in the state complaint was not embraced by the federal indictment which involved the subsequent interstate violations.