Prohibiting probation for a conviction for spousal rape by a foreign object did not violate equal protection. Valdez challenged his sentence following his conviction for raping his spouse with a foreign object, contending that the prohibition on granting probation to one convicted of spousal rape with a foreign object violates equal protection because there is no similar prohibition for spousal rape. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. The state has a legitimate interest in allowing probation for those convicted of spousal rape because such an act could result in the birth of a child, and a legitimate interest would be served by granting probation to that child’s parent. No such interest exists when the crime is spousal rape by foreign object. Further, the potential for greater violence and injury to the victim exists where the rape is accomplished by foreign object.