People v. Reece CA2/3

DISCUSSION

Reece argues the trial court erred by denying his section 1170(d) petition on the ground that he was not sentenced to— and is not currently serving—an LWOP term. Reece concedes section 1170(d) expressly applies only to juvenile offenders sentenced to explicit LWOP terms. Nevertheless, he argues the statute violates the equal protection clauses of the federal

3 and state constitutions to the extent it denies relief to juvenile offenders sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP. 1. Relevant law a. Equal protection The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the California Constitution prohibit the denial of equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).) “At core, the requirement of equal protection ensures that the government does not treat a group of people unequally without some justification.” (People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 288.) Where, as here, the challenged law is not based on a suspect classification and does not burden fundamental rights, the law denies equal protection “only if there is no rational relationship between a disparity in treatment…