There are mandatory minimums relating to the number of marijuana plants for Lehigh County criminal cases. One case in particular is Commonwealth v. Burnsworth, 543 Pa. 18 (Pa. 1995) which is very important for Lehigh County criminal defense lawyers.
In this case, the defendant was convicted of growing marijuana plants, but the trial court refused to impose a minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 7508(a)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), finding the statute unconstitutional. The court found that statutory interpretation was guided by the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 1901-1991, and that a strong presumption of constitutionality existed.
The court found that when a statute was clear and unambiguous, it was given its plain meaning. The court held that the statutory language which discussed marijuana plants included the growing of any number of plants. The court found that there was a rational basis for the statute. The court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the statute was constitutional and valid, and there was a rational basis for imposing a minimum mandatory sentence.
The court determined that under a due process/equal protection analysis, it is well established that if a classification does not impermissibly interfere with a fundamental right or disadvantageously affect a suspect class, the classification will be upheld as long as it passes the rational basis test. Since 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7508 does not implicate a fundamental constitutional right or burden a suspect class, the legislative classification treating growers of marijuana differently from individuals who possess certain quantities of marijuana, must be evaluated under the rational basis analysis. First, the court must determine whether the challenged statute is designed to further a legitimate state interest or public value. If it is, the court must then determine whether the statute is reasonably related to accomplishing the articulated state interest. The court must address whether the statute has some relationship to the interest which the legislature seeks to promote and whether that relationship is reasonable.