Commonwealth v. Carela-Tolentino
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentChief Justice Castille
The Court today summarily affirms, without opinion, the Superior Court’s determination that the mandatory $25,000 fine imposed in this drug possession ease was not unconstitutionally excessive. Because I believe that there must be some rational and reasonable relationship between the actual criminal conduct, the circumstances at issue, and the fine imposed, and because I believe that sentencing courts must have some discretion to ensure that such a relationship exists, I would find that the one-size-fits-all mandatory approach represented by 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 violates constitutional…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Commonwealth v. Real Property & Improvements Commonly Known as 5444 Spruce StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. BurnsworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Commonwealth v. GippleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.