criminal laboratory analysis in California

2017Sierra reasons, "The problem with appellant's construction of ... section 11372.7, subdivision (a) is that the very sentence appellant attempts to interpret defines the drug program fee as an increase to the 'total fine' and later as a fine in addition 'to any other penalty .' (Italics added.) In other words, section 11372.7, subdivision (a) describes itself as both a fine and/or a penalty." ( Sierra , at p. 1695, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 .) The same statutory interpretation applies to the criminal laboratory analysis fee that also requires the trial court to "increase the total fine necessary" and

2017Sierra reasons, "The problem with appellant's construction of ... section 11372.7, subdivision (a) is that the very sentence appellant attempts to interpret defines the drug program fee as an increase to the 'total fine' and later as a fine in addition 'to any other penalty .' (Italics added.) In other words, section 11372.7, subdivision (a) describes itself as both a fine and/or a penalty." ( Sierra , at p. 1695, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 .) The same statutory interpretation applies to the criminal laboratory analysis fee that also requires the trial court to "increase the total fine necessary" and

2021While we agree with the parties that the criminal laboratory analysis fee for count two, imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, must be stayed (People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 870 ), we make an observation that requires remand to the trial court for recalculation.

2018Appellate courts are willing to intervene in the first instance because such error is 'clear and correctable' independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing." ( Ibid . ) This case does not fall within that exception because the trial court was authorized to impose penalty assessments on both the drug program and the criminal laboratory analysis fees. ( People v. Sierra (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 , 1695, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 [drug program fee is punitive and subject to penalty assessments]; People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859 , 869, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 [laborator

2018Appellate courts are willing to intervene in the first instance because such error is 'clear and correctable' independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing." ( Ibid . ) This case does not fall within that exception because the trial court was authorized to impose penalty assessments on both the drug program and the criminal laboratory analysis fees. ( People v. Sierra (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 , 1695, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 [drug program fee is punitive and subject to penalty assessments]; People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859 , 869, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 [laborator

2018Appellate courts are willing to intervene in the first instance because such error is 'clear and correctable' independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing." ( Ibid . ) This case does not fall within that exception because the trial court was authorized to impose penalty assessments on both the drug program and the criminal laboratory analysis fees. ( People v. Sierra (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 , 1695, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 [drug program fee is punitive and subject to penalty assessments]; People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859 , 869, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 [laborator

2021In so holding, the court “reject[ed] Watts’s anomalous conclusion that the criminal laboratory analysis fee ‘is by its nature not punishment and therefore not a “fine” or “penalty” except,’ as the second paragraph of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5, subdivision (a), specifies, ‘in the case of an offense “for which a fine is not authorized by other provisions of law.” ’ ” ( Ruiz, supra, at p. 1113 , quoting Watts, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 235 .) The court also rejected both Vega’s “assertion . . . that ‘the main purpose’ of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5 ‘is not to exact re

2021In so holding, the court “reject[ed] Watts’s anomalous conclusion that the criminal laboratory analysis fee ‘is by its nature not punishment and therefore not a “fine” or “penalty” except,’ as the second paragraph of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5, subdivision (a), specifies, ‘in the case of an offense “for which a fine is not authorized by other provisions of law.” ’ ” ( Ruiz, supra, at p. 1113 , quoting Watts, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 235 .) The court also rejected both Vega’s “assertion . . . that ‘the main purpose’ of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5 ‘is not to exact re

2021In so holding, the court “reject[ed] Watts’s anomalous conclusion that the criminal laboratory analysis fee ‘is by its nature not punishment and therefore not a “fine” or “penalty” except,’ as the second paragraph of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5, subdivision (a), specifies, ‘in the case of an offense “for which a fine is not authorized by other provisions of law.” ’ ” ( Ruiz, supra, at p. 1113 , quoting Watts, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 235 .) The court also rejected both Vega’s “assertion . . . that ‘the main purpose’ of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5 ‘is not to exact re

2021In so holding, the court “reject[ed] Watts’s anomalous conclusion that the criminal laboratory analysis fee ‘is by its nature not punishment and therefore not a “fine” or “penalty” except,’ as the second paragraph of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5, subdivision (a), specifies, ‘in the case of an offense “for which a fine is not authorized by other provisions of law.” ’ ” ( Ruiz, supra, at p. 1113 , quoting Watts, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 235 .) The court also rejected both Vega’s “assertion . . . that ‘the main purpose’ of [Health and Safety Code] section 11372.5 ‘is not to exact re

2018There, the trial court imposed a criminal laboratory analysis fee under section 11372.5 in connection with a conviction of cocaine possession. ( Id. at p. 1153, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 , 46 P.3d 388 .) On review, the People asked the Court of Appeal to impose additional amounts under Penal Code section 1464 and Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a), which respectively require the levy of an additional state and county "penalty ... upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses." ( Talibdeen , at pp. 1153-1154, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 , 46 P.3

2018There, the trial court imposed a criminal laboratory analysis fee under section 11372.5 in connection with a conviction of cocaine possession. ( Id. at p. 1153, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 , 46 P.3d 388 .) On review, the People asked the Court of Appeal to impose additional amounts under Penal Code section 1464 and Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a), which respectively require the levy of an additional state and county "penalty ... upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses." ( Talibdeen , at pp. 1153-1154, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 , 46 P.3

2018Nothing about these alterations suggests a change in the Legislature's view that the payment, even when called a criminal laboratory analysis fee, was a "fine" and a "penalty." 7 Elsewhere in our opinion, we explained that the 2003 Budget Act reduced General Fund financing for trial courts in the same amount that the fee was projected to generate: $34 million. ( People v. Alford , supra , 42 Cal.4th at p. 754 , 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 310 , 171 P.3d 32 .) 8 We disapprove People v. Martinez (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 659 , 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , People v. Webb (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 486 , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 679 ,

2018Nothing about these alterations suggests a change in the Legislature's view that the payment, even when called a criminal laboratory analysis fee, was a "fine" and a "penalty." 7 Elsewhere in our opinion, we explained that the 2003 Budget Act reduced General Fund financing for trial courts in the same amount that the fee was projected to generate: $34 million. ( People v. Alford , supra , 42 Cal.4th at p. 754 , 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 310 , 171 P.3d 32 .) 8 We disapprove People v. Martinez (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 659 , 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , People v. Webb (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 486 , 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 679 ,

2017Sierra reasons, "The problem with appellant's construction of ... section 11372.7, subdivision (a) is that the very sentence appellant attempts to interpret defines the drug program fee as an increase to the 'total fine' and later as a fine in addition 'to any other penalty .' (Italics added.) In other words, section 11372.7, subdivision (a) describes itself as both a fine and/or a penalty." ( Sierra , at p. 1695, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 .) The same statutory interpretation applies to the criminal laboratory analysis fee that also requires the trial court to "increase the total fine necessary" and

2017Sierra reasons, "The problem with appellant's construction of ... section 11372.7, subdivision (a) is that the very sentence appellant attempts to interpret defines the drug program fee as an increase to the 'total fine' and later as a fine in addition 'to any other penalty .' (Italics added.) In other words, section 11372.7, subdivision (a) describes itself as both a fine and/or a penalty." ( Sierra , at p. 1695, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 .) The same statutory interpretation applies to the criminal laboratory analysis fee that also requires the trial court to "increase the total fine necessary" and

2017(See People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 , 1197, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 ["[P]enalty assessment set forth in section 1464 [ ] is a 'garden variety' fine calculated on the size and severity of the base fine imposed."].) *498 With respect to the criminal laboratory analysis fee, we agree with the courts in Watts and Vega that the fee serves a primarily administrative function.

2017(See People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 , 1197, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 ["[P]enalty assessment set forth in section 1464 [ ] is a 'garden variety' fine calculated on the size and severity of the base fine imposed."].) *498 With respect to the criminal laboratory analysis fee, we agree with the courts in Watts and Vega that the fee serves a primarily administrative function.

2018As earlier noted, that section provides that a convicted conspirator is "punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of" the underlying target offense. ( Ibid. ) As also noted earlier, we held in Athar , supra , 36 Cal.4th at page 405 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 570 , 114 P.3d 806 , that the "general plain meaning" of this language renders a convicted conspirator subject to " all punishment for" the underlying target offense.

2017The Legislature's use of the term "fee" does not preclude the determination that the levy is in the nature of a fine or penalty because "the label the Legislature places on a charge, whether 'fee' or 'fine,' is not determinative, especially where as here the Legislature used both terms." ( Vega, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 195 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 700 ; see also In re Alva (2004) 33 Cal.4th 254 , 266-267, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 811 , 92 P.3d 311 .) As the Vega court noted, "In most cases the determination can be made on the basis of the purpose of the charge imposed.

2013(See People v. Castellanos (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1528-1530 [summarizing various assessments, surcharges and penalties applicable to fees].) No breakdown of the assessments and surcharges was contained in the probation order.

2011(People v. Knightbent (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1109 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 ]; People v. Castellanos (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1528-1530 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) The trial court properly imposed a $150 drug program fee (§ 11372.7) as to count 2, which was subject to the following: a $150 state penalty (Pen.

2018As noted earlier, a finding that the Legislature intended a particular sanction to constitute punishment " 'ends the inquiry.' " ( Mosley , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 1063 , 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 251 , 344 P.3d 788 .) Because, for reasons explained above, it is clear the Legislature intended the fees at issue here to be punishment, it is "unnecessary to pursue any additional inquiry into their underlying character." ( People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355 , 361, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 , 1 P.3d 650 [finding, for purposes of applying the double jeopardy clause, that Legislature intended restitution fines to

2018As noted earlier, a finding that the Legislature intended a particular sanction to constitute punishment " 'ends the inquiry.' " ( Mosley , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 1063 , 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 251 , 344 P.3d 788 .) Because, for reasons explained above, it is clear the Legislature intended the fees at issue here to be punishment, it is "unnecessary to pursue any additional inquiry into their underlying character." ( People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355 , 361, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 , 1 P.3d 650 [finding, for purposes of applying the double jeopardy clause, that Legislature intended restitution fines to

2013A statute need not expressly refer to section 654 to override the proscription against multiple punishment (see People v. Benson (1998) 18 Cal.4th 24 , 31–33), but the requirement of a fee for “each separate offense” does not clearly signify that an exception to the general rule was intended.

2011(See People v. Benson (1998) 18 Cal.4th 24, 31-33 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 , 954 P.2d 557 ]; People v. Le, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at pp. 932-934.) Seventh, there is no evidence section 11372.5 was a mere budget measure as in the case of the Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a) court security fee.