|By Practice AreaBankruptcyChild CustodyCriminal LawDivorceFamily LawLabor & Employment LawMedical MalpracticePersonal InjuryReal EstateTaxationWills & ProbateMore...||By Life EventsGetting a DivorceWrite a WillBankruptcy, Credit and DebtHome Disaster RecoveryLosing a JobLandlord TenantAutomobile AccidentPrivacy ViolatedCare for an Aging RelativeIdentity TheftHot Topics on Lawyers.comMore...||By LocationCaliforniaFloridaGeorgiaIllinoisMichiganNew JerseyNew YorkOhioPennsylvaniaTexasWashingtonMore...|
|Legal ForumsRegisterSign inBankruptcyBusinessCriminalEmploymentFamilyImmigrationReal EstateMore...||Ask a LawyerAsk a QuestionChat Archives|
Pennsylvania mandatory sentencing is subject to attack where a Judge rather than a jury decides the facts that determine whether a mandatory sentence applies.
For years now it has been the Judge deciding whether a mandatory sentence applies. For example, the quantity of drugs and whether a gun was present or used in a crime are facts which trigger mandatory sentencing. These facts should not be found by a Judge at sentencing. At sentencing there is a lesser standard of proof which is proof, i.e. by a preponderance of the evidence. Our Constitutional right to a jury trial and due process requires the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your attorney should argue for this higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This issue should be preserved at sentencing and in a post-sentencing motion. The United States Supreme Court is currently deciding whether this important Constitutional right of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to facts which enhance a sentence.