Commonwealth v. Petzold
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
BECK, Judge:
In this case we decide whether the trial court must impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence where the government’s outrageous conduct entrapped or manipulated the defendant so as to escalate the severity of the crime he has committed.
Although we accept the principles underlying sentencing entrapment, we conclude that appellant in this case has not demonstrated that a departure from mandatory sentencing provisions is appropriate.
The facts of this case are relatively simple. Appellant sold one quarter pound of marijuana to a confidential informant (Cl) who was working with…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Gerald ConnellCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Joe Garza-Juarez and Esteban Garza-Juarez, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Mark William Paul StauferCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. MontoyaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- United States v. EgemonyeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TorittoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Commonwealth v. AdamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Commonwealth v. MoralesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- C. Mickens v. PA BPPCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.