People v. Evans CA5

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends his sentence violates equal protection principles and must be reversed. This argument takes two forms. First, appellant argues a “defendant with the same offense date, sentencing date, prior criminal record as appellant, but convicted under [Penal Code] section 496[, subdivision ](a) instead of [Penal Code section] 496d[, subdivision ](a), would have the opportunity to have his conviction and sentence reduced to a misdemeanor,” an opportunity appellant has been denied. Second, appellant contends there is “no rational connection to legitimate legislative purposes to permit felony punishment for possession of a stolen vehicle valued at $950 or less, when possession of stolen property of the same value generally requires only misdemeanor punishment.” 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…