We do not find merit in the appellant’s argument that the provision guarding against the forfeiture of a right or privilege in § 15-9-7 [Youthful Offender Act] conflicts with § 13A-12-290, which provides for the six-month suspension of the driver’s license of persons convicted of certain offenses. § 13A-12-290 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court rejects the argument that section is unconstitutional because it punishes citizens who have driver’s licenses differently from citizens who do not have driver’s licenses.

This section does not violate the double jeopardy provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions. The appellant pleaded guilty to one offense and was given youthful offender status. Section 13A-12-290 was used as a sentencing enhancement provision. Thus, it was an enhancement of an existing penalty rather than a separate conviction and sentence. The possession of a driver’s license is a “privilege” rather than a fundamental right. It may be revoked by the State as a means to discourage drug offenses because the Legislature’s action in enacting the statute was related to a legitimate State interest, i.e., discouragement of drug activity and promotion of public safety.