People v. Alford, D070486

Defendant Luis Alford pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Safety Code § 11378) and was sentenced to prison plus mandatory supervision; the court imposed a $50 statutory laboratory fee (§ 11372.5) and up to $150 drug program fee (§ 11372.7), but actually assessed larger amounts by adding mandatory penalty assessments under Penal Code § 1464 and Gov. Code § 76000.
After judgment, Alford moved to strike the added penalty assessments arguing §§ 11372.5 and 11372.7 impose only “fees,” not a “fine” or “penalty,” so the penalty statutes should not apply.
The trial court denied the motion; Alford appealed the imposition of the additional penalty assessments ($155 added to the lab fee and $465 added to the drug program fee).
The Court of Appeal acknowledged a split in authority among appellate courts on whether the penalty statutes apply to the lab and drug program statutes.
The court concluded the penalty assessments were properly imposed, relying on People v. Talibdeen and prior appellate decisions treating the section 11372.5/11372.7 assessments as fines/penalties subject to mandatory penalty assessments.
The Court affirmed the judgment but remanded to correct a clerical omission: itemize each fine/fee/penalty with statutory basis in the abstract of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code § 1464 and Gov. Code § 76000 penalty assessments apply to amounts imposed under Health & Safety Code §§ 11372.5 (lab fee) and 11372.7 (drug program fee)	Penalty statutes apply because §§ 11372.5 and 11372.7 describe the amounts as fines/penalties and the statutes use language identical to § 1464 triggering assessments	The § 11372.5/11372.7 amounts are nonpunitive administrative fees, not "fines" or "penalties," so the penalty statutes should not increase them (as argued in Watts and Moore)	The court held the penalty assessments properly apply: the statutory amounts are, in substance, fines/penalties subject to the mandatory penalty assessments; affirmed but remanded to itemize amounts in the abstract

People v. Talibdeen, 27 Cal.4th 1151 (2002) (California Supreme Court held penalty assessments under Penal Code § 1464 and Gov. Code § 76000 are mandatory when a § 11372.5 laboratory fee is imposed)
People v. Sierra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 (1995) (Fifth Dist.) (held § 11372.7 drug program fee is a fine/penalty subject to penalty assessments)
People v. Martinez, 65 Cal.App.4th 1511 (1998) (Second Dist.) (applied Sierra reasoning to hold § 11372.5 laboratory fee is subject to penalty assessments)
People v. Watts, 2 Cal.App.5th 223 (2016) (First Dist.) (concluded penalty assessments do not apply to § 11372.5 lab fee; court here disagreed with Watts)
People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (2007) (distinguished court-security fee analysis and recognized that assessments labeled as arising from convictions are generally punitive)