People v. Jordan, 21 Cal. App. 5th 1136

Defendant pled no contest (July 2016) to possession for sale and transportation for sale; probation was granted with fines and fees, including criminal laboratory analysis fee and drug program fee with penalty assessments.
Defendant did not object at sentencing to the fees or penalty assessments and filed an appeal challenging denial of his suppression motion (original appeal).
While the original appeal was pending, defendant filed a Fares motion in trial court (Mar. 23, 2017) asking the court to strike penalty assessments on the laboratory analysis fee (relying on People v. Watts). Trial court denied the motion (Apr. 24, 2017).
Defendant timely appealed the denial of the Fares motion (notice of appeal May 3, 2017); this appeal followed while the original appeal was still pending.
This panel held it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the denial of the motion but concluded defendant waived his penalty-assessment claims by failing to raise them in his original appeal as required by Penal Code § 1237.2 and waiver doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this appeal from the denial of the Fares motion is procedurally barred by § 1237.2/waiver	People: appealable order but defendant waived by not raising the issue earlier	Jordan: timely Fares motion and separate appeal from its denial is proper	Court: appealable, but claims waived—§ 1237.2 requires fee/assessment claims be raised in original appeal when other issues are also on appeal; failure to do so waives them
Whether penalty assessments were an "unauthorized sentence" reviewable at any time	People: assessments were lawful; no exception	Jordan: assessments unauthorized (relying on Watts) and so can be corrected anytime	Court: not an unauthorized sentence—assessments on these fees may be lawfully imposed; exception does not apply

People v. Fares, 16 Cal. App. 4th 954 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Fares procedure for correcting ministerial sentencing errors in trial court)
People v. Acosta, 48 Cal. App. 4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App.) (conduct-credit claims may be raised on appeal when accompanied by other issues)
People v. Senior, 33 Cal. App. 4th 531 (Cal. Ct. App.) (waiver bars belated claims that could have been raised earlier)
Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 4th 595 (Cal.) (postjudgment orders affecting substantial rights are appealable)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal. 4th 331 (Cal.) (narrow "unauthorized sentence" exception explained)
People v. Sierra, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1690 (Cal. Ct. App.) (drug program fee subject to penalty assessments)
People v. Sharret, 191 Cal. App. 4th 859 (Cal. Ct. App.) (laboratory analysis fee subject to penalty assessments)
People v. Watts, 2 Cal. App. 5th 223 (Cal. Ct. App.) (contrary holding that lab fee cannot carry penalty assessments)
People v. Moore, 12 Cal. App. 5th 558 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court disagreed with Watts; lab fee is a fine subject to penalty assessments)

Disposition: Judgment affirmed.