In People v. Cavallaro (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 103, the court rejected an equal protection challenge to mandatory sex offender registration for persons convicted of violating section 288, subdivision (c)(1). The defendant had claimed that because those persons convicted of violating section 261.5 were not required to register, the registration requirement was invalid for those persons convicted of violating section 288, subdivision (c)(1). (People v. Cavallaro, supra, at p. 111.) The court rejected that argument because those persons convicted under the two different statutes were not similarly situated. (Id. at pp. 113-114.) First, section 288, subdivision (c)(1) includes a specific intent element that is not present in section 261.5: "The higher mental state required for a conviction under section 288 is a distinction that is meaningful in deciding whether a person convicted under that statute is similarly situated with one convicted under section 261.5." (People v. Cavallaro, supra, at p. 114.) Second, because section 288, subdivision (c)(1) requires that the defendant be at least 10 years older than the victim, "the Legislature could have properly concluded that it was necessary to specifically prohibit sexual conduct between a 14 or 15 year old and an adult at least 10 years older . . . because of the potential for predatory behavior resulting from the significant age difference between the adult and the minor." (People v. Cavallaro, supra, at p. 114.) Finally, section 288, subdivision (c)(1) protects children younger than those protected by section 261.5 (i.e., 14 or 15 year olds, versus children less specifically under 18 years old), reflecting a legislative intent to protect sexually nave children from considerably older adults. (People v. Cavallaro, supra, at pp. 114-115.)