properly considered factors in California

1991(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 423.)" ( People v. Hunt, supra, 174 Cal. App.3d at. pp. 107-108, fn. omitted.) (5c) For the above reasons, we conclude defendant's proportionality argument is foreclosed by his guilty pleas. (4b) Moreover, defendant's sentence — four years, eight months — is, on its face, not so disproportionate to the crimes for which it was imposed that it "shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity." ( In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424 [ 105 Cal. Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 ], fn. omitted.) III.

1991(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 423.)" ( People v. Hunt, supra, 174 Cal. App.3d at. pp. 107-108, fn. omitted.) (5c) For the above reasons, we conclude defendant's proportionality argument is foreclosed by his guilty pleas. (4b) Moreover, defendant's sentence — four years, eight months — is, on its face, not so disproportionate to the crimes for which it was imposed that it "shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity." ( In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424 [ 105 Cal. Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 ], fn. omitted.) III.

1984(People v. Leonard *156 (1983) 34 Cal.3d 183, 188 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 171 , 666 P.2d 28 ]; People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 25 .) However, we do not agree with appellant’s claim that had the court properly considered those factors it would have been compelled to conclude the prejudicial effect of the challenged evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. “ “Section 288 of the Penal Code was enacted to protect children from the lustful advances and tampering of callous and unscrupulous persons as well as from the assaults of depraved unfortunates.

1984(People v. Leonard *156 (1983) 34 Cal.3d 183, 188 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 171 , 666 P.2d 28 ]; People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 25 .) However, we do not agree with appellant’s claim that had the court properly considered those factors it would have been compelled to conclude the prejudicial effect of the challenged evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. “ “Section 288 of the Penal Code was enacted to protect children from the lustful advances and tampering of callous and unscrupulous persons as well as from the assaults of depraved unfortunates.

1984In all cases arising under this statute the purpose of the perpetrator in touching the child is the controlling factor and each case is to be examined in the light of the intent with which the act was done.’” [Citations.]” (People v. Kingston (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 629, 635 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 896 ], italics added.) Here, appellant defended against the charges by introducing evidence that he had no sexual motivation in photographing the children and claimed the pictures were taken for research.

1984In all cases arising under this statute the purpose of the perpetrator in touching the child is the controlling factor and each case is to be examined in the light of the intent with which the act was done.’” [Citations.]” (People v. Kingston (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 629, 635 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 896 ], italics added.) Here, appellant defended against the charges by introducing evidence that he had no sexual motivation in photographing the children and claimed the pictures were taken for research.