People v. Androshchuk CA3

DISCUSSION

A The equal protection clause of the federal Constitution provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1.) There is a similar clause in the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).) Both serve to prevent “governmental decisionmakers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike.” (Nordlinger v. Hahn (1992) 505 U.S. 1, 10 [120 L.Ed.2d 1]; see People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 288 (Chatman).) Both also employ different standards of review depending on the challenged classification, with a lower level of scrutiny in cases like this one that do not

2 involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications. (See People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838 [applying rational basis scrutiny when evaluating two criminal statutes because, among other things, a defendant “ ‘does not have a fundamental interest in a specific term of imprisonment’ ”]; see also Nordlinger, at p. 10.) In cases subject to this lower level of scrutiny, courts have long held that a classification does not run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there…