People v. Moore, C079171

Defendant Zack Uriah Moore III was convicted of being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Safety Code §11550(a)) and sentenced to summary probation plus custodial time; the court imposed various fines and fees.
The trial court imposed a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee under Health & Safety Code §11372.5 and added penalty assessments under Penal Code §1464 and Government Code §76000. The court did not impose the §11372.7 drug program fee.
Moore appealed to the Nevada County Superior Court appellate division, which held penalty assessments could not be added to the §11372.5 lab fee and remanded for consideration of the §11372.7 fee (without assessments).
The California Court of Appeal granted transfer and limited briefing to whether penalty assessments apply to fees imposed under §§11372.5 and 11372.7. The Attorney General argued they do; Moore’s appointed counsel did not file a brief.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court as to §11372.5 (holding the lab fee is a fine/penalty subject to assessments) and reversed the appellate division. The court declined to decide whether penalty assessments apply to §11372.7 because the trial court never imposed that fee and the record was silent as to ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the §11372.5 criminal laboratory analysis levy is a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" subject to Penal Code §1464 and Gov. Code §76000 assessments	The lab fee is a fine/penalty and thus subject to penalty assessments	The lab fee is an administrative fee (not punitive) and not subject to penalty assessments	The lab fee under §11372.5 is a fine/penalty and is subject to the assessments
Whether penalty assessments apply to the §11372.7 drug program fee	The drug program fee is subject to penalty assessments (AG argued)	The fee is not subject to assessments; trial court did not impose it here	Not decided on merits; court declined to reach the question because the fee was not imposed in this case
Whether the appellate division erred by remanding for an express ability-to-pay finding before imposing §11372.7 fee	The appellate division erred; remand unnecessary where record silence permits presuming court found inability to pay	Appellate division said remand required to consider fee without assessments	Court held the appellate division erred to remand; no express finding required and silence may be construed as a determination not to impose the fee

People v. Talibdeen, 27 Cal.4th 1151 (California Supreme Court) (state and county penalty assessments must be imposed as statutorily determined)
People v. Vega, 130 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App.) (characterized lab charge as administrative fee)
People v. Sierra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 (Cal. Ct. App.) (concluded drug program fee described as fine/penalty)
People v. Turner, 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reaffirmed lab fee treated as fine subject to assessments)
People v. Martinez, 65 Cal.App.4th 1511 (Cal. Ct. App.) (treated similar lab fee/drug program fee framework and discussed ability-to-pay presumption)
People v. Watts, 2 Cal.App.5th 223 (Cal. Ct. App.) (concluded lab fee not a penalty; argued statutory language supports administrative-fee characterization)