Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Bell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided July 25, 1994No. 35 and 36 Western District Appeal Docket 1992 and 22 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1993PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
These consolidated appeals challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentencing statute for marijuana trafficking set forth at 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(1)(h) and (hi). Because we find that this provision can be interpreted consistently with other statutes in such a way as to provide a maximum sentence for the offenses, we reject the notion that it is impermissibly vague and -violates the due process clause of Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The different factual and procedural backgrounds of these cases shall be set forth separately.
Com…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. StorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Commonwealth v. BlystoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HockenberrySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Commonwealth v. PostieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Commonwealth v. BaneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Commonwealth v. BurnsworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- State v. NailSupreme Court of Iowa · 2007
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.