Because a person convicted of attempted lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, sec. 288, subd. (a)) is not similarly situated to one convicted of oral copulation with a minor under 18 (sec. 288a, subd. (b)(1)), mandatory sex registration for lewd conduct on a child less than 14, as compared to discretionary registration for oral copulation of a minor does not violate equal protection. Appellant was convicted of attempted lewd acts on a child under 14, and sought relief from his registration obligation. He relied on People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, where the California Supreme Court found the registration requirement for section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) a violation of equal protection. The appellate court rejected the equal protection argument because appellant could not show that he was similarly situated to a group of offenders who are not subject to mandatory sex-offender registration. Additionally, mandatory registration for this crime, as opposed to discretionary registration, is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose since the crime at issue is limited to victims under the age of 14, who by their age are more vulnerable to sexual predators.