Opinion ID: 6346140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Drug-Free Zone Statute

Text: As previously mentioned, the General Assembly enacted the predecessor of the drug-free zone statute that applies to the Defendant’s offenses in 1995. With passage of the 1995 Act, the General Assembly announced its intent “to create Drug-Free School Zones for the purpose of providing all students in this state an environment in which they can learn without the distractions and dangers that are incident to the occurrence of drug activity in or around school facilities.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-432(a) (Supp. 1995). A drug-free school zone was identified as “the grounds or facilities of any school” and the area “within one thousand feet (1,000’) of the real property that comprises a public or private elementary school, middle school or secondary school.” Id. § 39-17-432(b) (Supp. 1995). The 1995 Act created both “enhanced and mandatory minimum sentences . . . for drug offenses occurring in a Drug-Free School Zone.” Id. § 39-17-432(a) (Supp. 1995). The enhanced sentence provision appeared at section 39-17-432(b). The 1995 Act provided that “[a] violation of [section] 39-17-417, or a conspiracy to violate such section, that occurs [in a Drug-Free School Zone] shall be punished one (1) classification higher than is provided in [section] 39-17-417(b)–(i) for such violation.” Id. § 39-17-432(b) (Supp. 1995). The mandatory minimum sentencing provisions appeared at sections 39-17-432(c) to -432(e). Subsection (c) provided: Notwithstanding any other provision of law or the sentence imposed by the court to the contrary, a defendant sentenced for a violation of subsection (b) shall be required to serve at least the minimum sentence for such defendant’s appropriate range of sentence. Any sentence reduction credits such defendant may be eligible for or earn shall not operate to permit or allow the release of such defendant prior to full service of such minimum sentence. Id. § 39-17-432(c) (Supp. 1995). Subsections (d) and (e) contained similar provisions specifying that the sentencing laws relative to release eligibility status, parole, and -6- reduction of prison overcrowding would not authorize the release of a defendant “prior to service of the entire minimum sentence for such defendant’s appropriate range of sentence.”6 Id. § 39-17-432(d), (e) (Supp. 1995). The 1995 Act also made clear that nothing prohibited a judge from sentencing a defendant “to any authorized term of incarceration in excess of the minimum sentence for the defendant’s appropriate range of sentence.” Id. § 39-17-432(f) (Supp. 1995). Such was the state of Tennessee law for a decade. In 2005, however, the General Assembly amended the statute. Act of May 19, 2005, ch. 295, 2005 Tenn. Pub. Acts. 670– 72. The driving force behind the 2005 Act was a desire to expand the drug-free school zone to include the area around a “preschool, child care agency, or public library, recreational center or park.” Act of May 19, 2005, ch. 295, § 2, 2005 Tenn. Pub. Acts. 670. As such, the 2005 Act amended subsection (a) of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432, which announced the intent of the General Assembly, primarily to change the nomenclature from “drug-free school zone” to simply “drug-free zone.”7 Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-432(a) (2014), with Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-432(a) (Supp. 1995). However, the reference in subsection (a) to the statute’s requirements for both “enhanced and mandatory minimum sentences” remained the same as it was under the 1995 Act. See id. § 39-17-432(a) (2014). The only other changes associated with the 2005 Act—indeed, the most significant changes—occurred in subsection (b) of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432. Former subsection (b) was re-designated as (b)(1) and, consistent with the nomenclature change in subsection (a), amended simply to reflect that “[a] violation of [section] 39-17417, or a conspiracy to violate the section, that occurs [in a drug-free zone] shall be punished one (1) classification higher than is provided in [section] 39-17-417(b)–(i) for such violation.” Id. § 39-17-432(b)(1) (2014) (emphasis added). New section 39-17432(b)(1) otherwise remained substantively the same as prior section 39-17-432(b). The 2005 Act added a new section 39-17-432(b)(2), which established varying fine amounts for each class of felony offense under the statute, from not more than $10,000 for a Class E felony to not more than $100,000 for a Class A felony. Id. § 39-17-432(b)(2) (2014). Lastly, and most significantly for this appeal, the 2005 Act also added a new section 3917-432(b)(3), which provided: A person convicted of violating this subsection (b) who is within the prohibited zone of a preschool, childcare center, public library, recreational center or park, shall not be subject to additional incarceration as a result of 6 Given the similar nature of the three provisions, for ease of reference, we will look mostly to subsection (c) for the remainder of this opinion. 7 There were, by logical necessity, a few more minor changes to the language in subsection (a) to reflect that the focus of the statute was no longer solely on schools. -7- this subsection (b) but shall be subject to the additional fines imposed by this section. Id. § 39-17-432(b)(3) (2014). The 2005 Act made no changes whatsoever to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the existing statute. See id. § 39-17-432(c) to -432(e) (2014).