Commonwealth v. Morales, 80 A.3d 1177

In Jan. 2010 defendant (Appellee) sold a quarter-pound of marijuana to a confidential informant and pleaded guilty to unlawful delivery of marijuana.
The parties stipulated the sale occurred within 1,000 feet of Trinity Nursery School, implicating the Drug-Free School Zones Act (18 Pa.C.S. § 6317) which mandates a 2-year minimum for covered deliveries.
At sentencing the Commonwealth sought the § 6317 enhancement; Appellee asserted sentencing entrapment. The trial court declined to impose the enhanced sentence and sentenced Appellee to 1–2 months plus probation, finding sentencing entrapment.
The trial court sua sponte declared § 6317 facially and as-applied unconstitutional despite Appellee not raising a constitutional challenge.
The Commonwealth moved to modify the sentence seeking the § 6317 minimum; the trial court again denied modification on the bases of sentencing entrapment and its earlier constitutional ruling.
The Commonwealth appealed; because the trial court struck down a statute the Superior Court transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court, which vacated the constitutional ruling and remanded for consideration of the sentencing entrapment issue.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Was § 6317 properly declared unconstitutional by the trial court?	Trial court erred in striking § 6317; Commonwealth opposed the constitutional ruling.	Appellee did not raise a constitutional challenge.	Vacated: trial court improperly and sua sponte declared § 6317 unconstitutional.
Was the constitutionality of § 6317 waived?	§ 6317 issue was not preserved and thus waived.	N/A — Appellee never challenged the statute constitutionally.	Yes; Appellee waived constitutional challenge under Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Should the court resolve the case on constitutional grounds though non-constitutional relief was available?	Courts should avoid constitutional rulings if non-constitutional grounds decide the case.	N/A — trial court relied on sentencing entrapment as non-constitutional basis.	Trial court should have resolved the case on sentencing entrapment; constitutional ruling unnecessary.
Should the Superior Court now review sentencing entrapment?	Commonwealth asked Superior Court to review trial court’s sentencing entrapment ruling.	Appellee argued sentencing entrapment.	Remanded to Superior Court to consider the Commonwealth’s challenge to the sentencing entrapment finding.

MacGregor v. Mediq Inc., 576 A.2d 1123 (1990) (trial court should not sua sponte raise defenses or act as advocate for a party)
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 67 A.3d 736 (2013) (courts should resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds when practicable)
Commonwealth v. Petzold, 701 A.2d 1363 (1997) (explaining equitable doctrine of sentencing entrapment and burden to show outrageous or extraordinary government misconduct)