Showing posts with label Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Show all posts

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Is a Daycare Facility a "School" to Trigger "Drug Free School" Mandatory Minimum Sentence


“Drug Free School Zone” 
Mandatory Minimum Sentence
          In Pennsylvania, if a person is convicted of a violating section 780-113(a)(30) of the Drug Act, which generally prohibits the delivery, possession with intent to deliver, or the manufacture of drugs, and if the delivery of drugs occurs within 1,000 feet of the real property of any “school”, then the person is subject a two year mandatory minimum sentence.  This mandatory 
minimum sentence is commonly referred to as the “drug free school zone” law.  Many people believe that the “drug free school zone” law is intended to prevent drug dealing to children, but there is actually another mandatory minimum sentence law that punishes drug deliveries to people under 18.  The intent behind the “drug free school zone” is that drug dealing is often associated with guns and violence, and the legislature is seeking to punish people more severely that bring the dangerous activity in the vicinity of schools.  While the law was passed with good intentions, the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission, based at Penn State University, actually recommended to the legislature that the law should be repealed.

Is a Daycare Facility a “School”
          A recent case required the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to determine whether a daycare facility should be considered a preschool and thus trigger the “drug free school zone” mandatory minimum sentence.  In the case, the prosecution argued that since the daycare facility was licensed by the Department of Health and engaged in some educational activities on a daily basis, it was in fact a preschool.  The Court held that it was a daycare facility and not a preschool because the facility did not employ any state licensed teachers and did not consider itself to be a preschool.  The facility called itself a daycare.

While the Court held that the daycare was not a preschool, it still had to consider whether a daycare facility should be considered a “school” for purposes of the “drug free school zone” statute.  The prosecution argued that since the laws intent is to protect children from the danger of drug activity, the legislature intended the phrase “school” to include a daycare facility.  As the “drug free school zone” statute is a criminal law, the Court noted that it is required to strictly construe the words in the law and cannot give them extra meanings or definitions.  The Court stated that other Pennsylvania law referenced both schools and daycare facilities.  If the legislature had intended to include daycare facilities under the school zone mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, then it needed to include such language in the law.  As the “drug free school zone” only references “school” and not a daycare facility, the court stated that a daycare facility would not trigger application of the “drug free school zone” law.

Impact on State College Drug Delivery Cases
          This case will probably have a minimal impact on how drug cases are handled in Centre County.  The “drug free school zone” mandatory minimum sentence law will continue to have a huge impact on downtown State College drug delivery cases.  The word “school” includes both private and public 
elementary, high school, colleges, and universities.  Much of downtown State College falls within a “drug free school zone” based upon the presence of Penn State University, the State College School District, and the downtown State College area has a plethora of churches that have preschool programs.  This case may cause drug defense attorneys to more closely scrutinize a preschool facility and try to argue that the facility is in fact a daycare and not a “school.”  Regretfully, if the defense attorney’s argument is rejected the judge, the client is the ultimate loser as the client is sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of two years incarceration, often for giving a small amount of marijuana to a friend.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Will District Attorneys Use the Sentencing Enhancement for DUI Offenders That Had a Juvenile in Car?

By
As discussed in a prior blog post, on July 9, 2012, an amendment to the DUI law became effective that increased both the grading and the penalties for a DUI charge if a “minor under 18 years of age was an occupant in the vehicle when the violation occurred.”  Basically, if a person charged with a DUI has a juvenile in the vehicle, then the district attorney has to make a decision whether or not to seek the increased penalties for the DUI offense.  People probably assume that a district attorney would always seek the maximum penalty possible in such a situation, but, as with almost any decision, there are benefits but also costs that must be considered. 

What Are the Costs?
The increased DUI penalties come with the cost of giving the DUI defendant the right to a jury trial.  Generally, most first and second offense DUI defendants do not have the right to have the case heard by a jury but instead are only entitled to a trial before a judge.  Most experienced DUI defense attorneys would prefer to have a trial by jury as opposed to a trial by judge.  A jury trial increases the amount of time and thereby increases the expense of prosecution of a DUI case for the district attorney.  One could respond that the possibility of a jury trial is not much of a cost since the majority of criminal cases do not make it to a trial as they are resolved via a plea agreement between the prosecution and the defense.  However, when the district attorney seeks increased penalties, a defendant is more likely to proceed to a trial to avoid those penalties, and the DUI defendant would prefer to “roll the dice” at a trial before a jury.  The jury trial issue would not have an impact on second offense DUI defendants charged with having the highest rate of alcohol or three time DUI offenders as those persons are already entitled to a jury trial. 

What Are the Benefits?
Simply stated, the amendment to the DUI law gives the district attorney more power to control a sentence that is imposed on a DUI defendant.  The problem with the amendment is that the power given to the district attorney is relatively minor as the amendment does not impose sentences that are much greater than the mandatory minimum sentences already required for DUI offenses.  For example, if the enhancement is imposed on a first offense of DUI, the mandatory fine is $1,000.00 and completion of 100 hours of community service is required.  A first offense DUI in the third or highest range of penalties already requires a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000.00.  If the juvenile passenger enhancement is imposed on a second offense, the mandatory sentence includes a $2,500.00 fine and not less than 1 month nor more than 6 months incarceration.  Without seeking the sentencing enhancement, a two-time DUI offender in the middle range of penalties already faces a mandatory minimum of 1 month incarceration, and a two- time DUI offender in the highest range of penalties faces a 3 month minimum period of incarceration.  In some situations, the penalties imposed after invoking the juvenile passenger enhancement would result in increased mandatory penalties, but, in many other situations, the penalties are the same and sometimes even less than the mandatory minimum penalties already imposed.  Therefore, the district attorney would only receive a benefit when invoking the enhancement in certain DUI cases.

Will It Be Used?
I believe that the DUI sentencing enhancement for having a minor passenger in the vehicle was created more by Pennsylvania politicians to appease constituents than actually punish violators of the law and deter such conduct.  As discussed above, the amendment does not substantially increase the penalties for DUI offenses.  Also, district attorneys routinely already use other charges, such as Endangering the Welfare of a Child or Reckless Endangerment, in DUI cases in a minor was an occupant.  Therefore, the current DUI enhancement was not needed to give the district attorney another way to punish DUI offenders.  The district attorney will have to consider the costs and benefits associated with invoking the DUI sentencing enhancement.  Generally speaking, an experienced DUI defense attorney would much rather proceed to a jury trial rather than a bench trial.

Jason S. Dunkle has been a State College criminal defense lawyer since 2004.  His law office, JD Law, P.C., is located in downtown State College, within walking distance of the University Park Campus of Penn State University.  If you or someone you know has been charged with a DUI or other criminal offenese, contact JD Law at (814) 954-1094 and schedule a FREE CONSULTATION