BACKGROUND

Defendant pleaded no contest in October 1983 to oral copulation with a victim younger than 16 (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2))1 and the trial court placed him on probation for five years. The law required defendant to register as a sex offender and defendant did in fact register pursuant to section 290. In June 2010, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss his sex offense conviction. (§ 1203.4.) Four years later, defendant filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the trial court to vacate his registration requirement. The trial court denied the petition in May 2015, and defendant appeals from that denial.

DISCUSSION

Section 290 requires mandatory lifetime registration where, as here, a defendant is convicted of oral copulation with a victim younger than 16. (§ 290.) Relying on People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Hofsheier), overruled by Johnson, supra, 60 Cal.4th 871, defendant argues the lifetime mandatory sex offender registration requirement violates his federal and state due process and equal protection rights because the registration requirement treats similarly situated defendants differently. In Hofsheier, the California Supreme Court held that section 290 violated equal protection to the extent it required registration for defendants convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor age 16 or 17 years, but not for those convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor the same age. (Hofsheier, at p. 1207.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 As defendant concedes, however, Johnson overruled Hofsheier. In Johnson, the California Supreme Court held there is a rational basis for the challenged differential treatment. (Johnson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 880-884.) Defendant nevertheless argues Johnson was wrongly decided and that Hofsheier was correct. He acknowledges that we are bound to follow Johnson (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455), but he raises the issue to preserve it for review by the California Supreme Court. We will follow Johnson and affirm the trial court’s order.

DISPOSITION

The trial court order denying the petition for writ of mandate is affirmed.

/S/ Mauro, J.

We concur:

/S/ Nicholson, Acting P. J.

/S/ Robie, J.

3