People v. Suniga CA5

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court wrongly denied his petition for resentencing. He claims his sentence violates equal protection principles and must be reduced to a misdemeanor because there is no rational basis why his conviction under Penal Code

2. section 496d should be punished more harshly than a conviction for theft of a vehicle under Penal Code section 497. Standard of Review and Applicable Law “The concept of equal treatment under the laws means that persons similarly situated regarding the legitimate purpose of the law should receive like treatment. [Citation.] ‘“The first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection clause is a showing that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.” [Citations.] This initial inquiry is not whether persons are similarly situated for all purposes, but “whether they are similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged.”’” (People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399, 408 (Morales).) If this showing is met, a further analysis is undertaken. “‘The concept [of equal protection] recognizes that persons similarly situated with respect to the…