Appellant was convicted of two counts of failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements, based on three periods of time he lived in Los Angeles during 1998 and 1999. On appeal, he argued that the failure to register was a “continuing offense” and he was therefore guilty of only one offense. The appellate court here rejected that argument, concluding that the duty to register under Penal Code section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(A) began every time appellant entered Los Angeles and stayed there longer than five working days. He was therefore guilty of two separate registration violations. However, the evidence was insufficient to support the additional conviction under section 290, subdivision (f)(1) for failing to inform the police when he left Los Angeles, and the trial court committed instructional error by failing to instruct the jury that it had to find that appellant had actual knowledge of the notification requirement. The evidence showed that appellant was advised of his duty to register, but not of his duty to notify police when he left town. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that appellant had actual knowledge of the requirement, and the trial court’s failure to instruct on that element prejudiced him.