P.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, appellant contends that in imposing the 100-yard residency restriction, “the trial court apparently believed appellant was subject to the residency restrictions authorized by Penal Code section 3003.5 . . .” which requires the imposition of a 2,000 feet residency restriction and also argues that the sentencing was “purely formulaic, indicating [the trial court’s] belief that such restrictions were mandatory upon a grant of probation.” Because, appellant argues, section 3003.5 applies only to parolees and not probationers like appellant, the trial court failed to exercise “informed discretion” in its sentencing decision because it was “unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers.” Appellant then argues at length that the “automatic imposition” of section 3003.5’s mandatory residency requirements “constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in each and every case.” Appellant also asks this Court to excuse any forfeiture of the argument based on his failure to raise the issue to the trial court. We disagree and affirm. “A reviewing court is entitled to presume the sentencing court properly exercised its discretion in imposing sentence absent evidence to the…