Sentencing Entrapment for Bucks County Criminal Lawyers

Sentencing entrapment typically occurs in narcotics cases.  Sentencing entrapment is when a defendant is "entrapped" into committing a greater offense than they are predisposed to committing.  It is not the same as the classic view of entrapment as it is not a complete defense to criminal charges.  Instead, it is used to seek a reduced sentence through reaching a lower level of the sentencing guidelines.  Frequently, it is to avoid a mandatory sentence.  

Essentially, it can occur if the government in their investigation "enlarged or prolonged the criminal conduct in question."  Federal courts, especially in U.S. v. Connell (1992), will consider "the defendant's own predisposition...into the calculus."  

A case that defense attorneys should know is Commonwealth v. Ronald F. Paul from 2007.  The case overrules the trial court, but it outlines sentencing entrapment well.  The courts have not created detailed rules for sentencing entrapment as each case is so diverse in details.  Also, the courts provide a high burden of prevailing on sentencing entrapment as it is difficult to prove.  To start, "Sentencing manipulation occurs when a defendant although predisposed to commit a minor or lesser offense, is entrapped in committing a greater offense subject to greater punishment".  

Court Cases on Sentencing Entrapment

In Paul, the defendant made several narcotics sales of methamphetamine to an undercover sergeant.  At the time of the guilty plea, the Commonwealth was seeking a 3 year mandatory minimum based upon one of the sales being over 5 grams.  The defense argued that the Sergeant purposefully asked for a quantity higher than 5.0 grams in order to seek the mandatory minimum 3 years (in a standard range, he was looking at 6-14 months).  The trial court determined that the Sergeant acted improperly and entrapped the defendant.  

The Superior Court determined that the trial court erred in finding "extraordinary misconduct" on the part of the Commonwealth based on the circumstances of the case.  The Superior Court was also not convinced that Appellee had no predisposition to commit the greater offense.  The Superior court concluded that the defendant did not "meet the high standard of proving 'extraordinary misconduct' on the part of the Commonwealth."  

If you believe you are a victim of sentencing entrapment and you are charged in Bucks County, please contact a Bucks County criminal defense lawyer immediately.