Commonwealth v. Carpio-Santiago
14 A.3d 903
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Carpio-Santiago's residence and a nearby shed on Feb 13, 2009.
- Items found included a digital scale, a spoon with white residue, plastic bags and vials containing suspected substances, and $1,150 in cash.
- A surveillance camera was found in the shed; one bag near a pipe for smoking substances was also recovered.
- Lab testing showed cocaine residue on the spoon, scale, and a sample vial; two bags from the home and shed tested negative for controlled substances.
- Carpio-Santiago told police he purchased cocaine and often diluted it; a detective offered expert testimony alleging the substances were cocaine/crack and that Carpio-Santiago possessed them with intent to sell.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate 5-20 year sentence under the mandatory minimum provisions of 7508(a)(3); the court used the weight of bags testing negative for controlled substances to trigger 7508, which the court later vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 7508 applies where testing shows no controlled substance. | Carpio-Santiago argues no mandatory minimum because tested bags were negative. | Commonwealth argues aggregate weight includes all material in the mixture as per 7508. | Sentence vacated; 7508 not triggered due to negative tests. |
| Whether the trial court could use non-substance-weight in determining weight for 7508. | Carpio-Santiago contends non-substance bags cannot be counted. | Commonwealth relies on Lawson to infer substance identity. | Lawson distinguished; negative testing requires excluding bags from weight; remand for resentencing. |
| Whether Apprendi concerns apply to mandatory minimum weight determinations under 7508. | Apprendi limits enhanced penalties to facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | Triggering 7508 does not alter maximum sentence or offense, so Apprendi not applicable. | Apprendi does not apply to mandatory minimum calculation under 7508. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 448 Pa. Super. 445 (1996) (use of representative sampling to identify narcotics; distinguishable from present negative tests)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 397 Pa. Super. 574 (1990) (chemist may test representative packets to determine contents of larger group)
- Commonwealth v. Stasiak, 305 Pa. Super. 257 (1982) (circumstantial evidence identifying narcotics; context in Lawson distinguished)
- Commonwealth v. Leskovic, 227 Pa. Super. 565 (1973) (evidence of drug capsules without chemical analysis supported conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Carroll, 438 Pa. Super. 55 (1995) (preponderance standard for 7508(b) weight determination)
- Commonwealth v. Main, 6 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super. 2010) (illegal sentence if no statutory authorization; impact on 7508)
- Commonwealth v. Mears, 972 A.2d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2009) (remand when resentencing needed to fix illegal sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Aponte, 579 Pa. 246 (2004) (Apprendi considerations in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Kleinicke, 895 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Apprendi considerations in 7508 context)