Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Reducing a Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentence in a Pennsylvania Drug Case

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Sentencing Entrapment in a Drug-Free School Zone Case

    In Commonwealth v. Morales (2013), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered a trial court’s finding of sentencing entrapment and constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s drug-free school zone law. The PA Supreme Court returned the case back to the trial court with instructions to decide the case on the sentencing entrapment defense and not on the issue of whether the drug-free school zone law was constitutional.

    Background of the Case

    Morales was convicted of selling a quarter of a pound of marijuana to a confidential informant for the Franklin County Drug Task Force. He was convicted of possession with intent to deliver. Under Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act and the sentencing guidelines, his sentence would have been 61 days of imprisonment with probation and court costs.

    However, prior to sentencing the prosecutor’s office provided written notice that it intended to seek an enhanced sentence under Pennsylvania’s drug-free school zone law, since the deal occurred within 1,000 feet of a nursery school. Under the drug-free school zone law, Morales faced a mandatory minimum of 2 years in prison. He argued the sentencing entrapment defense, and the court agreed. In addition, the court questioned the constitutionality of the drug-free school zone law. Read more about Pennsylvania’s drug-free school zone law.

    The Trial Court’s Sentencing Order

    The trial court’s entire sentencing order reads:

    October 5, 2011, the Court having began sentencing on this, and it appearing there is an issue on entrapment and who suggested the location, the Court is going to impose the sentence without the mandatory school zone penalty today, but the Court will allow the Commonwealth, if they choose to appeal, to have a brief hearing at which time the Court will hear the confidential informant and the Defendant as to who suggested the location of it.

    The Court today having looked at the Pre-Sentence Report. He did well on the Pre Trial Program. He has one summary offense. He had admitted that he delivered the marijuana. And the Judge really has troucle[sic] sending an individual like that to two to four years in a State Correctional Institution. It doesn’t feel the interest of justice being served. The Court also feels that this is a very poorly drafted piece of legislature by the Pennsylvania Senate and House. Of course they are reacting to public opinion and didn’t think the things through and put certain requirements in to meet them. And I think it is Constitutional vague.

    Ultimately, the trial court held that Section 6317 (the drug-free school zone law) was unconstitutional, which triggered the appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Under Pennsylvania appeals law, the state’s Supreme Court hears a direct appeal in a case where a Court of Common Pleas declares a statute unconstitutional. Usually, cases are appealed to the Superior Court (intermediate appellate court) first.

    The Morales court recognized the sentencing entrapment defense; however, the court found that the trial court should not have decided the constitutionality of Section 6317 because the issue wasn’t raised by either of the parties. Basically, the trial court brought the issue up on its own, or sua sponte. This was a problem because judges are not supposed to raise issues and decide them; doing so turns a judge into an advocate for either side which is of course, improper.

    Ultimately, in the Morales case, the defendant was able to argue the sentencing entrapment defense, which kept him out of prison for 2 years. What’s interesting about this case is that the trial court found that the drug-free school zone law was unconstitutional, and the court’s instinct may be right. Due to a major U.S. Supreme Court case, Pennsylvania’s mandatory minimum sentencing laws, in their current forms, are probably unconstitutional.

    Related: Drug-Gun Cases in Philadelphia, Sentencing Laws Have Changed Significantly

    Philadelphia Criminal Drug Charge Lawyers – FREE CONSULTATIONS

    If you or a loved one is facing criminal drug charges in the Philadelphia area, please contact our office for a free case assessment. (215) 564-0644

    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"

    Not guilty on 1st Degree MURDER CHARGE (dec. 2022, Pottsville, Pa)

    Mr. Nenner's client faced first degree murder, third degree murder and various other charges. The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Whitted stabbed and killed a driver after an incident at a red light in West Brunswick Township. Throughout the trial, Mr. Nenner argued...

    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...


    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...


    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...


    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 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.