right to equal protection. Specifically, Witherspoon claims that under our Supreme Court’s reasoning in State v. Roswell, 165 Wn.2d 186, 192-94, 196 P.3d 705 (2008), there is no rational basis to require that some prior convictions be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of the crime, and to allow others be found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, as sentencing factors. We disagree. ¶66 Under both the state and federal constitutions, persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law must receive like treatment. U.S. Const, amend. XTV; Wash. Const, art. I, § 12; Thorne, 129 Wn.2d at 771. Our Supreme Court has upheld the POAA as constitutional against challenges based on equal protection principles. Thorne, 129 Wn.2d at 772 (<HOLDING>); Manussier, 129 Wn.2d at 674) (improved public
holding that city council had discretion to approve applications for liquor licenses and that liquor license holder was no more entitled to renewal than firsttime applicant holding that defendant charged with violation of section 481112 of the health  safety code cannot be punished more than once for manufacturing possessing and delivering the same single cache of drugs holding a recidivist may be justifiably punished more severely than a firsttime offender holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that probationers substantive violation can be the basis of probation revocation but should not be punished as a contempt