Pressley v. State, 73 So. 3d 834

Appellant Cortney Cornarus Pressley was convicted by jury of carrying a concealed firearm without a license (count I) and resisting an officer without violence (count II).
Trial court sentenced Pressley to four years in prison for count I and one year for count II, to run concurrently.
After sentencing, Pressley asked whether boot camp was available; the court responded it does not do boot camp and offered no other reasons.
Pressley timely appealed, arguing the trial court violated due process by refusing to consider a youthful offender sentence.
The Youthful Offender Act permits a court to impose a boot camp sentence where available; discretion lies with the court but is not unbridled and may not be exercised arbitrarily.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed the sentences and remanded for resentencing with consideration of a youthful offender option, affirming the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court's policy against considering boot camp violated due process.	Pressley argues due process was violated by arbitrary denial of a Youthful Offender option.	State contends no fundamental error in discretionary decision not to impose youthful offender terms.	Fundamental error; remand for resentencing with youth-offender consideration.

Cromartie v. State, 70 So.3d 559 (Fla. 2011) (fundamental error when trial court refuses to consider legislatively authorized sentencing option)
McKinney v. State, 27 So.3d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (trial court's discretion under Youthful Offender Act must be reasoned, not arbitrary)
Nolte v. State, 726 So.2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (court may decline to sentence as youthful offender pursuant to statute)
Ellis v. State, 475 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (trial court best positioned to determine whether youthful offender sentence is desirable)
Holmes v. State, 899 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (discusses Youthful Offender Act applications)