Filed 8/23/21 (unmodified opinion attached)
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE NOLASCO, Defendant and Appellant. |
B308627
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM050339-01) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
NO CHANGE IN THE JUDGMENT |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 29, 2021, be
modified as follows:
- On page 16, at the beginning of the fourth full paragraph, after “More recently, McKee,” add the words “seems to have.” The sentence should now read:
More recently, McKee seems to have applied what purported to be a form of “heightened scrutiny” that appears to be less rigorous than strict scrutiny, but more onerous than rational basis scrutiny. (McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1206-1207, 1210, 1211 & fns. 13 & 14.)
- On page 17, at the end of the same paragraph mentioned above, add the following sentence:
Although McKee ultimately ordered a remand for the trial court to “apply[] the equal protection principles articulated in [In re] Moye [(2009) 22 Cal.3d 457] and related cases discussed in the present opinion” (id. at p. 1209), and Moye applied strict scrutiny (In re Moye, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 465), Moye’s application of that standard rested on a concession (ibid.), and McKee’s discussion of related cases, as noted above, was not clear as to which level of scrutiny to apply.
* * *
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
——————————————————————————————LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.