§ 6317. Drug-free school zones.
(a) General rule.--A person 18 years of age or older who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth
of a violation of section 13(a)(14) or (30) of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233,
No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, shall, if
the delivery or possession with intent to deliver of the controlled substance occurred
within 1,000 feet of the real property on which is located a public, private or parochial
school or a college or university or within 250 feet of the real property on which
is located a recreation center or playground or on a school bus, be sentenced to a
minimum sentence of at least two years of total confinement, notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act or
other statute to the contrary. The maximum term of imprisonment shall be four years
for any offense:
(1) subject to this section; and
(2) for which The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act provides for a maximum
term of imprisonment of less than four years.
If the sentencing court finds that the delivery or possession with intent to deliver
was to an individual under 18 years of age, then this section shall not be applicable
and the offense shall be subject to section 6314 (relating to sentencing and penalties
for trafficking drugs to minors).
(b) Proof at sentencing.--The provisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime. Notice of the
applicability of this section to the defendant shall not be required prior to conviction,
but reasonable notice of the Commonwealth's intention to proceed under this section
shall be provided after conviction and before sentencing. The applicability of this
section shall be determined at sentencing. The court shall consider evidence presented
at trial, shall afford the Commonwealth and the defendant an opportunity to present
necessary additional evidence and shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence
if this section is applicable.
(c) Authority of court in sentencing.--There shall be no authority for a court to impose on a defendant to which this section
is applicable a lesser sentence than provided for in subsection (a), to place the
defendant on probation or to suspend sentence. Nothing in this section shall prevent
the sentencing court from imposing a sentence greater than that provided in this section.
Sentencing guidelines promulgated by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing shall
not supersede the mandatory sentences provided in this section. Disposition under
section 17 or 18 of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act shall
not be available to a defendant to which this section applies.
(d) Appeal by Commonwealth.--If a sentencing court refuses to apply this section where applicable, the Commonwealth
shall have the right to appellate review of the action of the sentencing court. The
appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court
for imposition of a sentence in accordance with this section if it finds that the
sentence was imposed in violation of this section.
(June 25, 1997, P.L.284, No.26, eff. 60 days)
1997 Amendment. Act 26 added section 6317. Section 5 of Act 26 provided that the addition of section
6317 shall apply to all offenses occuring on or after the effective date of Act 26.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K., 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015).
· cites it 18× “Anticipating the Commonwealth would seek the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, on October 31, 2013, Appellee filed a Motion for Extraordinary Relief contending Section 6317 was unconstitutional.”
Commonwealth v. Bizzel, 107 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014).
· cites it 20× “In this appeal, Appellant argues that the unconstitutional provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317 (Drug-free school zones) cannot be severed from the remainder of the statute, and therefore, the entire statute should be declared void and unenforceable.”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M., 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016).
· cites it 6× “In Hopkins, the Commonwealth sought the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of two years imprisonment upon a defendant for a conviction of delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance where the…”
Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 44 A.3d 58 (Pa. 2012).
· cites it 18× “In this matter of first impression we are asked to decide whether the Commonwealth's waiver of application of the school zone mandatory minimum sentence, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, [1] at the original sentencing precludes the Commonwealth from subsequently seeking its application…”
Commonwealth v. Washington, T., Aplt., 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016).
· cites it 2× “3d 247 , [J-73-2016] - 2 262 (2015) (holding that Section 6317 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. §6317 -- which predicates a mandatory minimum sentence upon a fact to be determined by a preponderance at sentencing -- was constitutionally infirm, under Alleyne).”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Resto, A., 179 A.3d 18 (Pa. 2018).
· cites it 5× “…of a sentence in accordance with this section if it finds that the sentence was imposed in violation of this section. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317.”
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 3× “§ 7508(b); 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317(b). Watley, 81 A.3d at 117 n.”
Commonwealth v. Drummond, 775 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 4× “, concurring: ¶ 1 I concur in the result reached by the Majority, affirming the trial court's imposition of the sentence enhancement under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317 (Drug-free school zones).”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Stotelmyer, D., 110 A.3d 146 (Pa. 2015).
· cites it 9× “1) permits the imposition of intermediate punishment even when there is a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration, dealt with the discrete issue of “whether the Commonwealth’s waiver of application of the school zone mandatory minimum sentence, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, at…”
Commonwealth v. Dixon, 53 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 6× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317. The Banks Group Daycare “fell squarely” within the definition of “school” approved in Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 47 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2012).
· cites it 4× “The Commonwealth appealed from the Superior Court’s decision, and we granted allocatur, rephrasing the issue only for clarity, as follows: Whether the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Act, 61 Pa.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6317(a) — 30 cases
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K., 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015).
“Anticipating the Commonwealth would seek the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, on October 31, 2013, Appellee filed a Motion for Extraordinary Relief contending Section 6317 was unconstitutional.”
Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 44 A.3d 58 (Pa. 2012).
“In this matter of first impression we are asked to decide whether the Commonwealth's waiver of application of the school zone mandatory minimum sentence, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, [1] at the original sentencing precludes the Commonwealth from subsequently seeking its application…”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M., 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016).
“In Hopkins, the Commonwealth sought the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of two years imprisonment upon a defendant for a conviction of delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance where the…”
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 47 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2012).
“The Commonwealth appealed from the Superior Court’s decision, and we granted allocatur, rephrasing the issue only for clarity, as follows: Whether the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Act, 61 Pa.”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Resto, A., 179 A.3d 18 (Pa. 2018).
“…of a sentence in accordance with this section if it finds that the sentence was imposed in violation of this section. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6317(b) — 33 cases
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K., 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015).
“Anticipating the Commonwealth would seek the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, on October 31, 2013, Appellee filed a Motion for Extraordinary Relief contending Section 6317 was unconstitutional.”
Commonwealth v. Bizzel, 107 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014).
“In this appeal, Appellant argues that the unconstitutional provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317 (Drug-free school zones) cannot be severed from the remainder of the statute, and therefore, the entire statute should be declared void and unenforceable.”
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“§ 7508(b); 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317(b). Watley, 81 A.3d at 117 n.”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Resto, A., 179 A.3d 18 (Pa. 2018).
“…of a sentence in accordance with this section if it finds that the sentence was imposed in violation of this section. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317.”
Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 44 A.3d 58 (Pa. 2012).
“In this matter of first impression we are asked to decide whether the Commonwealth's waiver of application of the school zone mandatory minimum sentence, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, [1] at the original sentencing precludes the Commonwealth from subsequently seeking its application…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6317(c) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 44 A.3d 58 (Pa. 2012).
“In this matter of first impression we are asked to decide whether the Commonwealth's waiver of application of the school zone mandatory minimum sentence, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, [1] at the original sentencing precludes the Commonwealth from subsequently seeking its application…”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Stotelmyer, D., 110 A.3d 146 (Pa. 2015).
“1) permits the imposition of intermediate punishment even when there is a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration, dealt with the discrete issue of “whether the Commonwealth’s waiver of application of the school zone mandatory minimum sentence, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, at…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6317(d) — 1 case
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K., 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015).
“Anticipating the Commonwealth would seek the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317, on October 31, 2013, Appellee filed a Motion for Extraordinary Relief contending Section 6317 was unconstitutional.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.