FREE CONSULTATIONS

Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Strikes the Drug-Free School Zone Sentencing Law

    For immediate release, December 3, 2014

    In an opinion released yesterday, the Pennsylvania Superior Court struck down Pennsylvania’s drug-free school zone sentencing law, 18 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Section 6317. In Commonwealth v. Bizzel, the Superior Court held that the drug-free school zone law is unconstitutional in light of a 2013 United States Supreme Court mandate in Alleyne v. U.S. Click here for a copy of the Bizzel opinion.

    Background of the Legal Issues

    Over the last decade or so, the Pennsylvania legislature passed various criminal sentencing laws aimed at keeping people incarcerated for longer periods of time. These sentence enhancement laws increased minimum sentences for drug related crimes committed under certain circumstances. Two of the most common sentence enhancement laws are the drug-free school zone and gun possession sentencing laws. The drug-free school zone law increases sentences for possessing or selling drugs within 1000 feet of a school zone, and the gun possession law increases sentences for possessing a gun or firearm while otherwise possessing/selling drugs.

    jail prisonThese sentence enhancing laws allow a trial judge, not a jury, to make the factual finding which triggers the enhanced sentence. For instance, for drug possession/dealing cases occurring within a school zone, the trial judge is required to find that the crime occurred within 1000 feet of a school zone. The standard of proof under PA’s sentence enhancement laws is lower than the one imposed on the government for prosecuting criminal cases. Prosecutors are required to prove the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the sentencing enhancement laws only require the prosecutor to prove the triggering fact by a preponderance of the evidence. If the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is like having to run a mile, the preponderance of the evidence standard is like having to run half a mile.

    The problem with Pennsylvania’s sentence enhancement laws is that the triggering fact is basically like an additional element of the given crime and therefore unconstitutional. This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court found in the seminal case, Alleyne v. U.SClick here for an in-depth analysis of the Alleyne case.

    Commonwealth v. Bizzel, December 2, 2014

    Since the Alleyne case was decided, no Pennsylvania appellate courts decided the issue of whether these sentence enhancement laws were constitutional or not. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court came close, in Commonwealth v. Munday, but decided the case just short of ruling on the constitutionality of the gun sentence enhancement law. In that case, the defendant raised the Alleyne issue and got his sentence reduced.

    Then in August of this year, the Superior Court again came close to ruling that the gun sentence enhancement law in the case was unconstitutional. See Commonwealth v. Newman. Instead of directly ruling that the gun sentencing law was unconstitutional, the court stated, “We find that Alleyne does indicate that the sentencing practice under Section 9712.1 is unconstitutional.”

    However, as of yesterday, the Pennsylvania Superior Court directly held that the drug-free school zone law is unconstitutional in light of Alleyne. In the Bizzel case, the court decided the issue of whether the unconstitutional part of the law could be severed from the rest of the statute. Finding that it could not, the court struck the entire law down.

    Implications of the Bizzel Case

    The Bizzel case isn’t cause for celebration just yet. The Bizzel court ruling is not final yet, and it’s highly likely the government will appeal the decision. Now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will probably have to decide the issue once and for all.

    Disclaimer: This website does not create any attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice. Our lawyers provide legal advice only after accepting a case. It is imperative that any action taken is done on advice of counsel. Read full disclaimer below.

     

    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"
    (2015-2022)

    MURDER, Att. Murder CHARGES – Negotiated Significantly Lower prison sentence (Feb. 2022, PHILA)

    Mr. Anderson faced murder and attempted murder charges after an incident in Northeast Philadelphia involving the shooting death of Anderson’s sister’s boyfriend and the boyfriend’s roommate who was shot 5 times and survived. The decedent had previously beaten the...

    Att. MURDER CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (April 2022, PHILA)

    The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Shelton shot and seriously injured a male in a bar in North Philadelphia called Circles. There was video of the shooting which happened outside the bar. However, Mr. Nenner presented witnesses who testified that the person in the bar...

    MURDER, Robbery CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner's client was charged with multiple crimes (murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.) after a shooting death occurred at a gambling house in North Philadelphia. At trial, Mr. Nenner successfully presented a self-defense argument and convinced...

    MURDER CHARGE – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner’s client was charged with murder and gun charges in Philadelphia. The client was accused of shooting and killing another male on Arch Street near the 5600 block of Ithan Street in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty after deliberating...

    Drug Possession Case – Motion to Suppress Granted

    Mr. Nenner presented evidence that to show that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop. The officer had no reason to pull the car over. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. As a result, the prosecution withdrew the charges.

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – Possession of a Controlled Substance

    In most criminal drug cases in Philadelphia, there are two common charges or offenses: Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver. In addition to these drug charges, there are other drug related charges, such...

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – What is “Possession”

    Page last reviewed and updated: October 20, 2019 One of the most common types of criminal state (PA) cases in Philadelphia is possession of drugs. Possession of a Controlled Substance (PCS) and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver (PWID) often...

    Pennsylvania Second Degree Murder (AKA: Felony Murder) Law

    Philadelphia criminal lawyer David S. Nenner discusses the current status of second degree murder law in Pennsylvania. This is also known as the felony murder rule. Get info about PA court decisions and the agency theory. Not every case of death during the commission of a felony will result in a second degree murder conviction in PA.

    Philadelphia Murder Cases – Police Investigation Tactics

    Questioning Police Officer Tactics in Philadelphia Murder Cases Within the last 10 years, there have been several murder Philadelphia criminal cases in which the accused individuals were acquitted of the crimes. In these cases, the individuals spent months, if not...

    Murder Charges in Pennsylvania – Murder Law in Pennsylvania

    An explanation of Pennsylvania murder laws including Section 2502. What is murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree and murder in the third degree. Get a summary of the definitions under Pennsylvania criminal law.