The former Stanford swimmer wants a new trial because he thinks his sentence was unfair.

The former Stanford University swimmer convicted last year of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman outside a campus fraternity party is appealing.

In the 172-page appeal filed Friday in Mill Valley, California, Brock Turner’s legal team said the initial trial was “a detailed and lengthy set of lies” and asked for a new trial. Turner’s team is also looking to overturn the convictions against him, which mandate he register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Turner was convicted in March 2016 of three felony counts of sexual assault. A Standford student testified that on the night of the attack in January 2015 he found Turner behind a dumpster lying on top of the partially clothed victim, who police later determined was unconscious.

Turner, who was a decorated swimmer at Stanford at the time, pleaded not

The case gained national attention when Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in jail after prosecutors recommended Turner receive a six-year sentence. Turner was released from county jail after serving three months.

“What we are saying that what happened is not a crime,” said John Tompkins, Turner’s legal adviser. “It happened, but it was not anywhere close to a crime.”

Tompkins said the facts of the case do not reflect the verdict, which is why they are appealing.

In the appeal, Turner’s legal team claims they were at a disadvantage on three fronts: The jury did not get a lot of evidence that represented Turner’s character; The jury was not allowed to consider a lesser offense; The jury was subjected to “extensive ‘behind-the-dumpster’ propaganda.”

Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, who is on a committee to recall the judge who sentenced Turner, said it’s common for people to appeal.

But in Turner’s case, she thinks this is just a wasted attempt to retry the evidence.

“The jury considered Mr. Turner’s victim-blaming arguments and decisively rejected them,” Dauber said. “The jury rejected those facts. It’s not appropriate for the court of appeals to step in and retry those facts.”