The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for failure to update sex offender registration because the evidence at trial did not show that appellant actually remained in California after he failed to register. Appellant complied with his registration requirements by registering with the Pittsburg Police Department in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. But following his last registration, he never contacted the police there or anywhere else in California. In 2007, police went to investigate whether appellant was at the last registered address, but finding the property was vacant, they obtained a warrant for his arrest. Appellant was charged with, and convicted of, failing to notify authorities where he last registered of his new address (former Pen. Code, sec. 290, subd. (f)(1)), failing to register with authorities in the new location where he was residing (former Pen. Code, sec. 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)), and failing to complete his annual registration within five days of his birthday (Pen. Code, sec. 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)). Appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence to support the three convictions. The court reversed two of the three convictions. The latter two statutes specifically limit the registration requirements to persons “residing in California.” While the prosecution did not bear the burden of proving appellant’s new address, it did have to prove that appellant moved to an address or location in California, and that was not done here. On the other hand, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for violating former section 290, subdivision (f)(1), because all this requires is notifying the authorities where the felon last registered of a move to a new address or transient location, and any plans the registrant has of returning to California. (While the court did not explicitly say so, based on the language of the statute, it would have applied regardless of whether appellant was inside or outside California.)