At trial, defendant maintained that it was Gundlah who actually murdered the victim. Thus, defendant argues that he had a lower degree of participation in the crime which was recognized by the jury and that it was unfair to subject him to a lengthier sentence than his co- perpetrator. The State concedes that defendant and Gundlah were similarly situated for purposes of equal protection analysis, but contends that the rational basis for the disparate sentences is simply the judge's discretion in imposing an individualized sentence that falls within the statutory limits. Federal courts have generally rejected equal protection claims based on disparate sentencing so long as the sentences imposed are within statutory guidelines. See id. at 1274-75.
Defendant asserts that the facts of the instant case satisfy the first scenario.
In Handley, the defendant challenged his sentence because, while his sentence was an exceptional sentence outside of the statutory range, a co-defendant was given a sentence within the statutory range. See id. at 1268. Nonetheless, the trial court imposed an exceptional sentence because it found the relevant aggravating factors were present, and in particular the court noted that the victim was defendant's employer. See id. at 1269. In Handley, the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, had an employment relationship with the victim, and was not charged with the same crimes as his co-defendants.