In People v. Gilchrist (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 38, the issue was whether disparate treatment of those who committed their offenses before and after the effective date of the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) constituted a denial of equal protection. Under the Indeterminate Sentencing Law, the maximum term of probation was life. Under the new DSL, the maximum term was five years. The defendant, who had been originally sentenced before the DSL and thereafter was placed on probation for longer than five years, claimed he was entitled to the shorter period under the DSL, and if not, then he was being denied equal protection. In rejecting this claim, the court cited the In re Kapperman (1974) dictum without analysis. ( Id. at p. 46.) The court further pointed out that probation was not a form of punishment but an act of clemency, whose purpose is rehabilitation. The court opined, "It is entirely reasonable for the Legislature to decide that those persons who committed an offense prior to the effective date of the DSL, and were granted probation, be required to fulfill the original or modified terms and conditions of the probation order under which this act of clemency was made, despite the disparity in maximum probationary periods created by the advent of the DSL." ( Id. at p. 47.) We further note that the court reviewed the classification scheme under the rational relationship test. ( Id. at p. 45.)