Two Counts, a School Zone, and a Caregiver
A 34-year-old defendant is convicted by a jury of two counts of selling 14 grams of fentanyl to an undercover officer. Both sales occurred within 1,000 feet of a public elementary school. The state sentencing guidelines yield 48-60 months. A statute requires a mandatory minimum of 36 months for sale within a school zone and permits the court to run sentences consecutively. The defendant has one prior nonviolent felony from 2016. He is the sole caregiver for two children, ages 8 and 11; his mother has cancer. He completed a 90-day drug treatment program while on pretrial release and has been employed for 14 months. The prosecutor asks for 60 months consecutive on each count, arguing the school proximity. Defense asks for 48 months concurrent and a drug-treatment disposition. The judge must sentence.
1. Identify the lawful sentencing options and the constraints the judge cannot ignore. May the judge impose probation or a fully suspended sentence?
Read the worked answer
The judge must impose the 36-month mandatory minimum on each school-zone count unless a statutory exception applies; probation or a fully suspended sentence is unavailable because the statute requires imprisonment. The guidelines range is 48-60 months, but the mandatory minimum is a floor, not a ceiling. The court may run the two counts concurrently or consecutively; the statute permits consecutive sentences, and the guidelines may advise on the total punishment. If the court imposes consecutive 36-month terms, the aggregate is 72 months, above the guideline range, so it must justify the upward variance under the sentencing factors. If it imposes concurrent terms, the range remains 48-60 months.
The judge cannot ignore the mandatory minimum, cannot impose a sentence below it for treatment, and cannot delegate the sentencing decision to the treatment provider. A drug-treatment disposition could be a condition of supervised release or a recommendation for placement, but it does not replace the prison term. The judge should also determine whether the two counts merge; sale offenses do not merge merely because they occurred near the same school.
2. Apply the relevant sentencing purposes and factors to choose a sentence. Explain how you weigh the school-zone facts, caregiver status, and rehabilitation evidence.
Read the worked answer
The purposes are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The school-zone location is an aggravating fact because it increases risk to children, but the sales were to an undercover officer and no child was involved; that does not eliminate the statutory concern but affects weight. The defendant's prior nonviolent felony and repeated sales justify a sentence above the minimum. His caregiving responsibilities are a mitigating fact, but they do not excuse the offense; the court should consider whether incarceration would cause exceptional hardship to the children and whether family support exists. The 90-day treatment completion and 14 months of employment are genuine rehabilitation evidence, but they occurred while he was on pretrial release, which also shows he could offend while supervised.
A proportionate sentence might be 48 months on each count, concurrent, with 36 months of supervised release, drug treatment, and a mental-health evaluation. That is within the guidelines and above the mandatory minimum, reflects the school proximity, and avoids the 120-month aggregate the prosecutor seeks, which is greater than necessary. The court should explain the statutory sentencing factors on the record.
3. The defendant later argues that a 120-month aggregate sentence would be cruel and unusual. How should the court assess that claim?
Read the worked answer
An Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge to a term of years is reviewed under a narrow standard; successful challenges to prison sentences are rare outside cases involving juveniles or extreme ratios. The court should first determine the actual aggregate sentence and the statutory maximum, then compare the sentence to the gravity of the offense and the defendant's culpability. Two sales of 14 grams of fentanyl near a school are serious, and the defendant has a prior felony, so a 120-month aggregate is not grossly disproportionate on its face.
The court should consider whether the sentence is the product of a statutory scheme that permits consecutive mandatory minimums, and whether the legislature intended that result. If the sentence is within the statutory maximum and not the result of a mandatory life sentence for a nonhomicide juvenile, the challenge likely fails. The court should also consider whether the sentence reflects an impermissible purpose, such as punishment for addiction, but addiction is not a defense. The stronger argument may be a state-law proportionality or guideline challenge, not the Eighth Amendment.