18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 dictates mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. If you are facing a drug crime in Lehigh County, you must know about the potential that you may be facing a mandatory minimum depending on the "weight" or amount of drugs. These ranges should be discussed with a Lehigh County criminal lawyer.
In Commonwealth v. Thomas, the defendant delivered 33 Percocet pills to a police informant. The 33 pills had an aggregate weight of 17.4 grams; however, only 330 mg of that weight was the pure narcotic, Oxycodone, the remaining weight was Acetaminophen, binders, and fillers. The standard of review was based on the fact that because convicted drug dealers are not a suspect class and the classification does not involve the exercise of a fundamental or important right, only a minimum level of scrutiny need be applied to determine whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(2) bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative objective.
The pertinent part of the sentencing code that applied to the defendant was,
when the aggregate weight of the compound or mixture containing the substance involved is at least ten grams and less than 100 grams; three years in prison and a fine of $15,000 or such larger amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal activity; however, if at the time of sentencing the defendant has been convicted of another drug trafficking offense: five years in prison and $30,000 or such larger amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal activity
She was was sentenced pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508 to the mandatory minimum sentence of not less than three nor more than six years of incarceration.
The appellate court in 2012 held there was no meaningful difference between the sentencing treatment of pills such as Percocet, Lorcet, and Dilaudid, and LSD, cocaine. Controlled substances were typically sold in a diluted state. In cases where the controlled substance was "cut," the substance was rendered more harmful to society because the dilution increased the potential number of persons who would partake of the proscribed controlled substance. The increased potential for harm to society justified the imposition of more severe penalties for the possession of large amounts of a diluted controlled substance than for smaller amounts of a pure controlled substance. Defendant failed to develop an argument for a constitutional distinction. Thus, a sentencing scheme based upon the aggregate weight of pills containing a controlled substance, including Oxycodone, did not violate either the Federal or Commonwealth Equal Protection Clause.