AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Jaleh WILKINSON, Defendant and Appellant.
In re Jaleh Wilkinson, On Habeas Corpus.
Supreme Court of California.
*421 Anthony J. Dain, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Eric R. Larson, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. De Nicola, Jaime L. Fuster and Thomas C. Hsieh, *422 Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney (Orange), Brian N. Gurwitz, Deputy District Attorney; Jan Scully, District Attorney (Sacramento), Albert C. Locher, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney; Steve Cooley, District Attorney (Los Angeles), George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney; and David R. LaBahn for California District Attorney's Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Certiorari Denied January 10, 2005. See 125 S.Ct. 892.
GEORGE, C.J.
Defendant Jaleh Wilkinson was convicted at trial of the offenses of battery on a custodial officer, driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident. The Court of Appeal reversed defendant's convictions on two unrelated grounds, concluding that (1) the statutory scheme pertaining to battery on a custodial officer violates equal protection principles because the statutes allow battery on a custodial officer without injury to be punished more severely than battery on a custodial officer with injury, and (2) the trial court erred in denying defendant a hearing, pursuant to the Kelly/Frye doctrine (People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240; Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir.1923) 293 F. 1013), regarding the admissibility of polygraph evidence to support defendant's claim that her commission of the charged offenses resulted from her unknowing and involuntary ingestion of drugs. We granted review to consider the Court of Appeal's resolution of both issues.
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that (1) the statutory provisions pertaining to battery on a custodial officer do not violate the equal protection clause of the state or federal Constitution, and (2) in light of the categorical prohibition on the admission of polygraph evidence in Evidence Code section 351.1, the trial court did not err in declining to hold a Kelly/Frye hearing regarding the evidence proffered by defendant. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
I
Defendant was charged by information with the offenses of battery on a custodial officer (Pen.Code, ї 243.1), a felony, and with driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (Veh.Code, ї 23152, subd. (a)) and failing to stop at the scene of an accident (Veh.Code, ї 20002, subd. (a)), both misdemeanors. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that, in the early morning hours of February 27, 1999, a motorist observed defendant driving erratically on a street in the City of Santa Monica. Defendant's vehicle crossed over the center divider, struck a parked car, and continued down the street, swerving between lanes. Defendant eventually stopped her car at a curb and placed her head on the front passenger seat. After the motorist telephoned the police, officers responded and tapped on the window of defendant's parked car, whereupon defendant looked at one of the officers and drove off. The police gave chase for three blocks before defendant stopped. Defendant, who smelled strongly of alcohol and exhibited slurred speech, indicated she had consumed some drinks but not many. She could not complete a field sobriety test and did not respond when told she was required to submit to a blood or breath test for alcohol.
Officers transported defendant to the police station. She was belligerent during booking and resisted a patsearch. At one point, defendant grabbed a custodial officer's arm with both hands, causing a visible welt. When taken to a holding cell, *423 defendant charged at an officer and yelled, kicked, and banged at the door. After the police reminded defendant that she would have to submit to a blood or breath test, defendant covered her ears, stated "I can't hear you," and began running around inside the cell. An officer testified defendant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol but not of drugs.
Defendant testified in her own defense as follows. On the night in question, defendant, a bank vice-president, went to a bar, where she met a man who offered to buy her a drink. She accepted and eventually consumed two glasses of wine. The man invited defendant to dinner, and they agreed to meet at a Santa Monica restaurant. At the restaurant, defendant consumed three alcoholic beverages over the course of three hours while she waited for the man, but he never arrived. She left her drink several times to use the restroom and to smoke a cigarette outside. She eventually left the restaurant, driving away without feeling any signs of intoxication. The next thing she remembered was waking up in jail, with no recollection of her encounter with the officers. After her release from custody, defendant filed a police complaint alleging she had been drugged.
A toxicologist, testifying on behalf of the defense, expressed the opinion that on the night in question defendant was under the influence of alcohol and gamma hydroxy butyrate (hereafter GHB), commonly known as a "date rape" drug, basing his opinion on a review of the police report and a videotape of defendant's conduct in the holding cell. GHB depresses the nervous system, exaggerates the effects of alcohol, and may cause drowsiness and memory loss. Depending upon a person's personality, the drug may make a person more emotional and combative. The toxicologist also suggested that if defendant was not under the influence of GHB, she must have been visibly drunk when she left the restaurant in order for her to exhibit the effects of intoxication so long after her last drink. A City of Concord police officer, testifying for the defense as a drug recognition expert, stated that defendant's symptoms appeared much more severe than what would be expected of someone who had consumed five alcoholic drinks over the course of several hours.
Prior to trial, defendant sought admission of evidence establishing that she had submitted to a polygraph examination and that, in the opinion of the polygraph examiner, she had "passed" the exam, responding truthfully (in the negative) to queries regarding whether she knowingly consumed more than five drinks on the night in question, knowingly ingested GHB or any other drug, or knowingly attacked an officer in a detention cell. Defendant requested a Kelly/Frye hearing, making an offer of proof that the polygraph examination technique employed by the examiner had been generally accepted in the scientific community and that the examiner employed proper procedures in administering the test. The trial court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, citing Evidence Code section 351.1.
The jury convicted defendant as charged, and the trial court placed defendant on formal probation for three years. The Court of Appeal reversed defendant's convictions, determining by a two-to-one vote that the statutory scheme pertaining to battery on a custodial officer violates equal protection principles, and unanimously concluding that the trial court erred by failing to hold a Kelly/Frye hearing regarding the admissibility of defendant's proffered polygraph evidence. We granted the Attorney General's petition for review as to both issues.[1]
*424 II
A
Defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code section 243.1,[2] which states in full: "When a battery is committed against the person of a custodial officer as defined in Section 831 of the Penal Code, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a custodial officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the custodial officer is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, the offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison." Section 831, subdivision (a), in turn, defines a "custodial officer" as "a public officer, not a peace officer, employed by a law enforcement agency of a city or county who has the authority and responsibility for maintaining custody of prisoners and performs tasks related to the operation of a local detention facility used for the detention of persons usually pending arraignment or upon court order either for their own safekeeping or for the specific purpose of serving a sentence therein." Because section 243.1 provides for a punishment of imprisonment in state prison, but does not otherwise specify the term of imprisonment, under section 18 the offense is punishable "by imprisonment in any of the state prisons for 16 months, or two or three years...."
At the time section 243.1 was enacted in 1976, section 243 prescribed the punishment (1) for simple battery (which section 243 made punishable as a misdemeanor), (2) for battery against a person who the defendant knew or should have known was a "peace officer or fireman engaged in the performance of his duties" (which section 243 made punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, commonly known as a "wobbler"), and (3) for battery resulting in the infliction of "serious bodily injury" (which section 243 also made punishable as a wobbler, prescribing a punishment of two, three, or four years' imprisonment for a felony violation).[3] (Stats.1976, ch. 1139, ї 150.5, pp. 5104-5105.)
*425 In 1981, the Legislature divided section 243 into subdivisions, with subdivision (a) covering simple battery (punishable as a misdemeanor with a maximum jail sentence of six months), subdivision (b) covering battery on a person who the defendant knows or should know is a peace officer, firefighter, etc. (punishable as a misdemeanor with a maximum jail sentence of one year), subdivision (c) covering battery on a peace officer, firefighter, etc., that results in the infliction of injury (a wobbler with a possible state prison term of 16 months, two years, or three years), and subdivision (d) covering battery that results in serious bodily injury (a wobbler with a possible prison term of two, three, or four years). (Stats.1981, ch. 678, ї 2, pp. 2476-2477.) The following year, in 1982, the Legislature added a reference to custodial officers to subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 243, defining custodial officers by reference to section 831. (Stats.1982, ch. 1353, ї 2, pp. 5048-5050; see current ї 243, subd. (f)(6).) Thus, as amended in 1982, section 243, subdivision (b), provided that battery on a person who the defendant knows or reasonably should know is a custodial officer is punishable as a misdemeanor with a maximum imprisonment of one year in county jail, and section 243, subdivision (c), provided that when such a battery results in injury to the custodial officer, the offense is punishable as a wobbler with possible imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, two years, or three years. Although the Legislature subsequently designated former section 243, subdivision (c), as current section 243, subdivision (c)(1) (with section 243, subdivision (c)(2), now covering battery on a peace officer or security guard with injury), the scheme of section 243 with respect to battery on a custodial officer has not been substantively changed since 1982.[4]
*426 B
On appeal, defendant contended in relevant part that the current statutory scheme pertaining to battery on a custodial officer is "irrational" and violates the federal and state guarantees of equal protection because one who commits the "lesser" offense of battery on a custodial officer without injury can receive felony punishment under section 243.1 while a person committing the "greater" offense of battery on a custodial officer with injury can be convicted of a wobbler offense under section 243, subdivision (c)(1) and can receive a misdemeanor sentence.
A majority of the Court of Appeal below agreed with defendant, reasoning: "If the battery on custodial officer statutes included only two options, a straight felony under section 243.1 or a straight misdemeanor under section 243, subdivision (b), both of which have identical elements, prosecutorial discretion to choose different punishment between offenders engaging in similar conduct would not violate equal protection.... [І] What is troubling about our scheme, however, is its inclusion of a third charging option, the wobbler under section 243, subdivision (c)(1), which contains the additional requirement of infliction of an injury.... This third option raises the specter of complete irrationality in the scheme, because the more serious offense of battering a custodial officer with injury could be punished less seriously (an alternative felony/misdemeanor) than battering a custodial officer without injury (a straight felony under section 243.1)." Because the "greater" offense can be punished less severely, the majority found the scheme "is not even rationally related to a scheme which would give prosecutors the entire range of punishments" and "encourages arbitrary, irrational charging" because prosecutors have an incentive to prove the "lesser" offense in order to obtain the greater punishment.
The dissent found no equal protection violation, questioning whether there is substantial evidence that the custodial officer here suffered an "injury" so as to allow a wobbler charge under section 243, subdivision (c)(1). The dissent also questioned whether a battery without injury necessarily was a less serious offense than battery with injury such that greater punishment for the former offense could not be imposed without violating equal protection principles.
C
We begin our discussion with an overview of relevant case authority. Although the precise issue before us has not previously been addressed, at least two cases have discussed the legislative history surrounding the statutory scheme pertaining to battery on a custodial officer. In In re Rochelle B. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1212, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, the juvenile court sustained a wardship petition, finding true the *427 allegation that the minor committed battery on a custodial officer under section 243.1. The minor challenged the finding on appeal, contending that a juvenile probation counselor was not a "custodial officer" within the meaning of sections 831 and 243.1. The Court of Appeal described in detail the legislative history of section 243.1, as well as the inclusion of "custodial officers" within section 243. The court observed: "A report of the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice suggested the bill `should be amended to delete Section 243.1 of the Penal Code which is a special section referring only to custodial officers,' apparently to avoid the resulting duplication in provisions setting out aggravated penalties for batteries against `custodial officers.' [Citation.] This suggestion was evidently ignored, with the result that two separate statutes now provide somewhat different punishments for batteries against custodial officers." (In re Rochelle B., supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1217, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, fn. omitted.)
In People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal. App.4th 521, 525, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 (Chenze), the defendant contended that he was improperly charged and convicted under section 243.1 because that provision had been "impliedly repealed" when the Legislature amended section 243 to include references to custodial officers. The defendant urged that the two statutes were in "irreconcilable conflict" since "[t]he older statute, section 243.1, provides that any battery against a custodial officer is a felony," whereas "the more recent statute [i.e., section 243, subdivision (c)(1)] permits felony treatment only if injury is inflicted." (Chenze, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 526, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362.)
The Court of Appeal in Chenze disagreed that the two statutes were in irreconcilable conflict and thus rejected the claim of implied repeal. The court cited an enrolled bill report prepared by the California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, which explained the need for an amendment to section 243 to include references to custodial officers notwithstanding the existence of section 243.1: "`According to the bill's sponsors, simple battery charges against custodial officers are rarely pursued by local prosecutors because the present law only provides for felony charges with imprisonment in a state prison. Thus, these violators are rarely, if ever, punished. [І] By providing for the option of county jail and/or fine for such violations, proponents hope that simple battery charges will be prosecuted more vigorously. Felony battery charges can still be pursued for the more serious cases.' [Citation.]" (Chenze, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 527, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362.) In light of this legislative history, the court in Chenze rejected the defendant's claim of irreconcilable conflict, reasoning: "In view of the fact that the Legislature amended section 243 to include custodial officers when it was aware of section 243.1, it is apparent the Legislature intended to give prosecutors a full panoply of prosecutorial options for a battery on a custodial officer. Under section 243, the offense may be punished as a misdemeanor (ї 243, subd. (b)), or a misdemeanor or felony if injury is inflicted (ї 243, subd. (c)(1)). But the Legislature also apparently envisioned that there might be circumstances under which no or only slight injury was inflicted, but felony charges would nonetheless still be appropriate. Accordingly, it did not repeal section 243.1, and has very recently amended it." (Ibid.) Although the defendant in Chenze pointed out that under section 243.1 all batteries on custodial officers are punished as felonies while under section 243, subdivision (c)(1), only batteries involving injury may be so punished, the Court of Appeal observed that "`[i]t is *428 axiomatic the Legislature may criminalize the same conduct in different ways ...'" and the "prosecutor has discretion to proceed under either of two statutes that proscribe the same conduct, but which prescribe different penalties. (United States v. Batchelder (1979) 442 U.S. 114, 123-125, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2203-2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 [(Batchelder)]" (Chenze, supra, 97 Cal. App.4th at p. 528, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362.))
The United States Supreme Court's decision in Batchelder, supra, 442 U.S. 114, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 60 L.Ed.2d 755, cited in Chenze, concluded that the defendant properly could be sentenced under one federal firearms statute, although an almost identical statute prescribed a lesser punishment. In Batchelder, the court took note of legislative history indicating that Congress "intended to enact two independent gun control statutes, each fully enforceable on its own terms...." (Batchelder, supra, 442 U.S. at p. 119, 99 S.Ct. 2198.) The court in Batchelder then stated that "[t]his Court has long recognized that when an act violates more than one criminal statute, the Government may prosecute under either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants" (id. at pp. 123-124, 99 S.Ct. 2198). The high court concluded that the statutory scheme at issue fell under this rule: "[T]here is no appreciable difference between the discretion a prosecutor exercises when deciding whether to charge under one of two statutes with different elements and the discretion he exercises when choosing one of two statutes with identical elements. In the former situation, once he determines that the proof will support conviction under either statute, his decision is indistinguishable from the one he faces in the latter context. The prosecutor may be influenced by the penalties available upon conviction, but this fact, standing alone, does not give rise to a violation of the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause." (Id. at p. 125, 99 S.Ct. 2198.)
We recently applied Batchelder in Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3 (Manduley), in rejecting an equal protection challenge to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d) as amended by Proposition 21. In relevant part, section 707, subdivision (d) was amended to expand the circumstances under which the prosecution may file criminal charges directly in adult court without first filing a wardship petition in the juvenile court and having that court conduct a fitness hearing to determine whether the matter should remain in juvenile court. The minors alleged that the amended provision violated equal protection principles because "minors of the same age and charged with the same crime under the circumstances enumerated in section 707 [subdivision (d)] are subject either to the juvenile court law or to the criminal justice system, based solely upon a prosecutorial decision that is unguided by any statutory standards." (Manduley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 567, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3.)
In Manduley we rejected this claim, reasoning in part: "[A]ll minors who meet the criteria enumerated in [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 707 [, subdivision] (d) equally are subject to the prosecutor's discretion whether to file charges in criminal court. Any unequal treatment of such minors who commit the same crime under similar circumstances results solely from the decisions of individual prosecutors whether to file against particular minors a petition in juvenile court or instead an accusatory pleading in criminal court. Although, as petitioners assert, a prosecutor's decision in this regard can result in important consequences to the accused minor, so does a decision by a prosecutor to initiate criminal charges against any individual, *429 including an adult." (Manduley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 568, 117 Cal. Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3.) We explained in Manduley that "petitioners cannot establish a violation of their right to the equal protection of the laws by showing that other minors in circumstances similar to those of petitioners can be prosecuted under the juvenile court law" (id. at p. 570, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3), likening a prosecutor's discretion to file adult criminal charges (instead of a juvenile court petition) to a prosecutor's discretion to bring charges under statutes proscribing similar conduct but with differing penalties (see id. at pp. 569-570, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3). Accordingly, our decision in Manduley concluded that the "prosecutor's discretion to select those statutorily eligible cases in which to seek a criminal disposition against a minor Б─■ based upon permissible factors such as the circumstances of the crime, the background of the minor, or a desire to show leniency, for example Б─■ does not violate the equal protection clause." (Id. at p. 571, 117 Cal. Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3.)
D
The Attorney General contends the statutory scheme before us does not violate equal protection principles because all persons who commit battery on a custodial officer are subject to the same statutory scheme and are not treated differently. He asserts that any possible disparate treatment results from charging decisions of prosecutors that, under Batchelder and Manduley, do not violate equal protection principles. The Attorney General further argues that in resolving the equal protection issue, we should conduct so-called rational basis review and find that there exists a rational basis for the statutory scheme at issue.
Defendant argues, in contrast, that so-called strict scrutiny should apply to the equal protection question at issue, because the present classification involves the "fundamental interest" of the "right to liberty." Further, defendant contends that even assuming that rational basis review applies, the Court of Appeal majority properly concluded that the statutory scheme before the court was irrational because it allows one who commits the "greater" offense (battery on a custodial officer with injury) to be punished less severely than one who commits the "lesser" offense (battery on a custodial officer without injury).
It is a fundamental principle that, "[t]o succeed on [a] claim under the equal protection clause, [a defendant] first must show that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner." (Manduley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 568, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3; In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 530, 159 Cal. Rptr. 317, 601 P.2d 549.) "In considering whether state legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... we apply different levels of scrutiny to different types of classifications. At a minimum, a statutory classification must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. [Citations.] Classifications based on race or national origin ... and classifications affecting fundamental rights ... are given the most exacting scrutiny. Between these extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny lies a level of intermediate scrutiny, which generally has been applied to discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy. [Citations.]" (Clark v. Jeter (1988) 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910, 100 L.Ed.2d 465; see also Manduley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 571, 117 Cal. Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3 ["equal protection provisions in the California Constitution *430 `have been generally thought ... to be substantially equivalent of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.'" (Fn. Omitted.)].)
Defendant relies upon People v. Olivas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 236, 131 Cal.Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375 and its progeny for her claim that the strict scrutiny standard applies in the situation before us. The court in Olivas considered an equal protection challenge to a statute that granted a trial court discretion to commit a defendant who was convicted in an adult criminal prosecution, and was between 16 and 21 years of age, to the California Youth Authority for a term longer than he or she would have received had the defendant been sentenced as an adult. Concluding that "personal liberty" constitutes a fundamental right that triggers application of the strict scrutiny standard, Olivas stated: "No reason has been suggested, nor can we conceive of any, why the concern for personal liberty implicit in both the California and federal Constitutions is any less compelling in defendant's case. We believe that those charters are no less vigilant in protecting against continuing deprivations of liberty than are their due process clauses in protecting against the initial deprivation of that liberty. We conclude that personal liberty is a fundamental interest, second only to life itself, as an interest protected under both the California and United States Constitutions." (Id. at pp. 250-251, 131 Cal.Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375; see also People v. Jacobs (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 797, 800-801, 204 Cal.Rptr. 234 [following Olivas and applying strict scrutiny to an equal protection challenge to a prior-prison-term enhancement statute]; People v. Gonzalez (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 274, 277, 146 Cal.Rptr. 417 [citing Olivas for the proposition that "[c]lassifications which deal with restraints upon personal liberty are subject to the strict scrutiny test applicable to equal protection of fundamental interests."].)
The language in Olivas could be interpreted to require application of the strict scrutiny standard whenever one challenges upon equal protection grounds a penal statute or statutes that authorize different sentences for comparable crimes, because such statutes always implicate the right to "personal liberty" of the affected individuals. Nevertheless, Olivas properly has not been read so broadly. As the court observed in People v. Davis (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 250, 154 Cal.Rptr. 817: "It appears ... that the Olivas court did not want to increase substantially the degree of judicial supervision of the Legislature's criminal justice policies. Such a highly intrusive judicial reexamination of legislative classifications is not merited by a close reading of Olivas. There is language in the Olivas opinion that emphasizes the narrowness of the holding. For instance, the court noted that [the statute in question] was constitutionally infirm because persons committed under the statute had been `prosecuted as adults, adjudged by the same standards which apply to any competent adult, and convicted as adults in adult courts.' (17 Cal.3d at pp. 242-243, 131 Cal.Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375.) This language requires only that the boundaries between the adult and juvenile criminal justice systems be rigorously maintained. We do not read Olivas as requiring the courts to subject all criminal classifications to strict scrutiny requiring the showing of a compelling state interest therefor." (Davis, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 258, 154 Cal.Rptr. 817.) Other courts similarly have concluded that a broad reading of Olivas, as advocated by defendant here, would "intrude[] too heavily on the police power and the Legislature's prerogative to set criminal justice policy." (People v. Bell (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1030, *431 1049, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 156; see People v. Owens (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 798, 802, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 428 ["California courts have never accepted the general proposition that `all criminal laws, because they may result in a defendant's incarceration, are perforce subject to strict judicial scrutiny,'" quoting People v. Silva (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 181]; People v. Mitchell (1994) 30 Cal. App.4th 783, 796, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ["Determining gradations of culpability ... does not implicate the strict scrutiny test for equal protection purposes."].)
We find the rational basis test applicable here. Defendant contends that the statutory scheme regarding battery on a custodial officer violates equal protection principles because it allows the "lesser" offense of battery without injury to be punished more severely than the "greater" offense of battery with injury. A defendant, however, "does not have a fundamental interest in a specific term of imprisonment or in the designation a particular crime receives." (People v. Flores (1986) 178 Cal. App.3d 74, 88, 223 Cal.Rptr. 465; see People v. Alvarez (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1116, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 [finding the rational basis test applicable to equal protection challenge involving "an alleged sentencing disparity"].) Defendant makes no claim that the classification here at issue involves a suspect class, nor does her claim implicate any interest akin to that at issue in Olivas, in which an individual faced a longer period of confinement if treated as a juvenile rather than as an adult. Application of the strict scrutiny standard in this cont