concentrate on the second issue of course i'll answer questions about maybe arguments i raised the crucial background of this case is that in early two thousand and twelve nineteen year old radley and three of his age same age peers too which were also too young to be drinking alcohol learned that they could go to the danvers y and drink generally without being current on the night of the accident radley unfortunately had been to have the designated driver as he left the damper as they left the the letters and letters on his behalf showed he helped others in need the sort of general practice rarely pleaded guilty in this case and took responsibility there was no plea agreement he was greece stricken and remorseful over causing the death of a third childhood friend he was allowed to attend nick's funeral even according to read lee's mother he visited nick's grave in the crash site often and d p s i indicates that he has a tattoo of nick's initials on one of his arms when you are convicted or plead guilty to ag dui that causes the tallahassee it's very very difficult to get probation the legislature has made it so it's their judgment that probation should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances and i believe that that specific statute that makes it harder to get probation was in play here which is why radley did not get probation i think perhaps under an ordinary sort of an ordinary standard you probably would have but many event so that leaves us with a range of three to fourteen years in prison really of course not only didn't get probation he didn't get three or four years he got six just twice the minimum and the court refused his request for impact incarceration which i otherwise didn't call boot camp as the court said rally was quote not the type of defendant who would benefit unquote from boot camp because quote he has a lot of things going for him but the court further elaborated later in the proceedings i believe that the reconsideration phase that he that the judge believed that boot camp was for people who are had been in gangs or had all otherwise had a long history of disciplinary problems so that in short while rally was not quite good enough to get probation he was more or less to good to get boot camp know the trials and simply said i don't think camp would be appropriate in this case would you be standing here making the argument that you are in regards to the trial court's failure to consider i would be arguing that it was there because i think that even if this court does not agree that that the circuit court added basically another layer to the qualifications required for boot camp by saying you have to have been in a gang or have a long juvenile record or something like that rally is the perfect kid for boot camp because he you know is as the p s i should see it a high he was a high risk for alcohol abuse evaluation when he was in high school which seemed to be when he was thriving when he was doing great as a kid greatest school great things w hen he had those which in those high discipline sports like football and wrestling and i think and also the the boot camp program also has substance abuse treatment as one of its goals besides life skills and release preparations along with the military formation stuff in education it's more than just discipline there's a lot more to it and one of things again the substance of this and so radley between basically having clearly having an alcohol problem and having thrived in high school even if the judge had merely said i'm not going to boot camp in this case that had not elaborated a single thing about gang membership or a lot of discipline i still think that would be wrong because you know certainly what you're saying is that there is no discretion in this case the jobs the qualification that's like an improper factor the secondary argument is that even if this court does not agree with that that just on a straight up abuse of discretion standard considering radley as an individual who thrived with the high discipline sports programs who clearly has a substance abuse problem in the form of alcohol he it meets all the other qualifications he seems the ideal candidate for him and so that's but that's that's a that's a that's sort of a secondary  that's why i was answering that way so the judge merely said nothing about gang membership and just said i'm not giving rally monson to jam and nothing else that's how i got  know again i believe that this case as a reference to my brief is similar to miller which is the second district case where a judge refused to give first offender probation largely because the judge believe that first offender probation was reserved for those who plead guilty rightly so and instead gave that particular defendant were very probation and on the peel the second district said that the that mr miller in that case had met the list of qualifications for first offender probation t and not have that particular offense related thing i think he added next i think he had a different type of one which is that you had to be a gang member or a long history of getting in trouble at school or juvenile offenses in order to be the kind of person he who he would give boot camp to and it doesn't it's not on the list and so it really is a different type of thing it's not of the less it's it's an analogy and of course in the remedy which is which would be the remedy on the boot camp issue is a new sentencing hearing which the judge would consider boot camp you know without reference to the improper factor that's assuming that this court does not reduce radley sense to four years as i had requested in the first argument which was straight up excessive sens policy of denying first under probation unless the defendant had some sort of clear agreement and this case this was simply the trial court you disconnect between the defendant needs and what were the intended receive benefits of boot camp in terms of instilling discipline in case this and offenders who had histories that discipline problems i'm that would be the ideal candidate or who can't not this dependence the state does dispute the defense argument that this would be an abuse of discretion because he considers himself to be ideal for impact incarceration even though who camp does have some sort of component of substance abuse counseling and the defendant has an alcohol problem doesn't make him ideal for boot camp and does not make the judge's decision to decline the recommendation for impact incarceration and abuse of discretion simply deciding under the facts of the case not the type of can a person who would benefit from boot camp does not mean that the judge had acted arbitrarily and denying the recommendation for her impact incarceration i'm simply the defense's position is whatever the reason would be that the judge gives for denying that impact incarceration recommendation would constitute adding an additional requirement and what he terms an extra qualification to the list of the sat choose that's not the case what happens is there's a list of requirements to spend it nice and then the judge gets to exercise discretion so essentially whenever the judge exercises discretion to withhold it the impact incarceration recommendation should not be viewed as arbitrary or simply adding an extra requirements  statute here that the disconnect was the fact that the defendant voice had a solid upbringing and all the recommendation letter showed that he was possessed of self discipline and pretty much every matter except for his ability to prosecutors that he was the defend it was simply jumping through the hoops and gaming the system whining about for example how long his alcohol consumption had lasted in order to minimize the amount of treatment and even after undergoing pastoral counseling and sessions at alcoholism first alcoholism at the agency where he was receiving substance abuse treatment then he still was consuming alcohol legally under age and so the fact that he was doing so even after being involved in a serious accident in which one of his friends died because of his alcohol consumption certainly shows a shocking lack of judgment on this part that is definitely court so for that reason the six year sentence was not a piece discretion it was not so unreasonable that no reasonable person would agree with it so this court should defer to the court's exercise of discretion and also find that impact incarceration was not honor the first hypothetical you mentioned has to be much closer to guys sort of arbitrary personal policy to say that boot camp would not be a recommendation would not even be considered unless the defendant that like an extra requirement for example being a member of the gang however taking all the facts of the case viewing the needs of the defendants and viewing the intended you know logical goals and benefits of impact incarceration program and comparing the two and then making your discretionary judgement as to whether that is something that should be recommend in the sentence that's the type of discretionary call that the court doesn't and second hypothetical would be a situation where the judge is not airing simply by looking at the  d benefits of the program considering whether the defendant would be within the scope of people that would be most likely to benefit program versus simply saying i'm not even going to consider whether this defendant should be it should be considered for the program because of the fact that he lacks a certain characteristic that that's that's different so you consider is one of the arbitrary refusal situation whereas here there is no failure to consider there was consideration sponsor your hypothetical yes we see your honor i would say that i could see a distinction between the two and that one appears to be a blanket rule the first appears to be a blanket rule and the second appears to be a statement based on the judge's years of experience whereas in prior perhaps prior sentences to boot camp have not worked out with certain types of defendants of the experience of the judge or the judges or perhaps some other judges that that's worked out you know in this case we don't have know it's he's not the kind of person because he has too many things going for centuries too good for him but on the other hand we have the boot camp is also for people who have substance abuse problems and as you know the state which recruits you in argument hughes in the rally of possibly gaming the system and jumping through hoops and lying about his alcohol and i would point out that if he's lying about his alcohol use that's actually more of a more of a not having a disciplinary handle on one's alcohol problems and it's an indication for camp even if it might be aggravated also i would note that because there was actually in this case it paperwork delay which you know rally getting actual professional substance abuse treatment apparently countermeasures one of the specific b a c that was taken at the time and there was none it was only taken a couple hours later and that particular one happen to be below the point zero eight and so i think they had trouble there was there was a delay in expecting accepting mentos counter measures didn't like the paperwork it was initially tender and because of that for the first few months or some point after the offense radley doesn't have professional substance abuse counseling he has whatever he gets from his local pastor which is while he can get the time so i think he was also without professional guidance at the time he was getting into trouble and dealing with grief and now having killed a good friend of his also i would also note that during the same time he was also invaluable in helping the danvers y get its liquor license polled by being  marg to two to clarify something the state argument argument is not whatever reason there is for denying bootcamp equals an extra bad qualification it's saying that it's for gang members or people longest larry records rather than looking to the to the to the person as a whole i don't think that was done here because again riley has a terrible substance abuse problem in his alcohol and he needs the thing and emits thief he fits all your qualifications hand aggravated d yeah so i mean these are just really difficult things in this we have in my opinion to have too much wider range of