must be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93, 110 (Fla.2002). However, when no fundamental right or suspect class is implicated, “courts usually invoke the rational basis test, under which the law must bear some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes.” Id. Florida courts have not addressed whether the Youthful Offender Act implicates a fundamental right. However, courts from other jurisdictions have held that there is no fundamental right to a youthful offender status, and thus have employed a rational basis analysis when considering whether a youthful offender statute violates equal protection. See People v. Perkins, 107 Mich.App. 440, 309 N.W.2d 634, 636 (1981) (<HOLDING>); People v. Mason, 99 Misc.2d 583, 416 N.Y.S.2d
holding that youthful offender treatment is not a fundamental right holding right to be fundamental holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process holding that age requirements under youthful offender statute did not implicate a fundamental right holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right