People v. Moore
12 Cal. App. 5th 558
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Defendant Zack Uriah Moore III was convicted of being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Safety Code §11550(a)) and trespass; sentenced to probation and various fines/fees.
- Trial court imposed a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee under Health & Safety Code §11372.5 and added statutory penalty assessments.
- Trial court did not impose the $150 drug program fee under Health & Safety Code §11372.7; the record is silent on why.
- The Nevada County Appellate Division (People v. Moore) held penalty assessments could not be added to the §11372.5 lab fee and remanded to consider the drug program fee without assessments.
- California Court of Appeal granted transfer and limited briefing to whether penalty assessments under Penal Code §1464 and Gov. Code §76000 apply to fees imposed by §§11372.5 and 11372.7.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court as to the lab fee (§11372.5) and reversed the appellate division; it did not decide whether §11372.7 is subject to assessments because the fee was not imposed below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §11372.5 criminal laboratory analysis levy is subject to penalty assessments under Penal Code §1464 and Gov. Code §76000 | AG: §11372.5’s language (increase the total fine; in addition to any other penalty) shows the levy is a fine/penalty and thus subject to assessments | Moore: The statutory label "fee" and purposes (defraying lab costs) mean it is an administrative fee not a fine; assessments should not apply | Held: §11372.5 constitutes a fine/penalty subject to Penal Code §1464 and Gov. Code §76000 assessments; trial court properly added assessments |
| Whether the §11372.7 drug program fee is subject to penalty assessments | AG: By parity of language with §11372.5, assessments should apply | Moore: Appellate division treated §11372.7 similarly to §11372.5 and concluded assessments do not apply | Held: Court did not decide applicability to §11372.7 because trial court never imposed the fee; remand by appellate division unnecessary because silent record permits presumption court found inability to pay |
| Whether appellate division correctly remanded for express ability-to-pay finding for §11372.7 | AG: N/A (court notes statutory scheme) | Moore: Appellate division remanded to consider imposition without assessments | Held: Remand was erroneous—no express on-the-record finding required; silence permits presumption court elected not to impose fee due to inability to pay |
| Whether precedent and statutory text permit treating the §11372.5 levy as a fee despite "fine/penalty" language | AG: Precedent (Talibdeen, Sierra, Martinez) and statutory wording support treating levy as fine/penalty | Moore/Vega/Watts: Emphasize history, administrative purpose, and statutory labeling as "fee" to argue against assessments | Held: Court follows Talibdeen/Sierra/Martinez line—labels are not dispositive; text and statutory context show levy is a fine/penalty subject to assessments |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Talibdeen, 27 Cal.4th 1151 (Supreme Court of California) (trial court must impose statutorily mandated state and county penalties)
- People v. Vega, 130 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App.) (lab fee characterized as administrative fee to defray testing costs)
- People v. Sierra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 (Cal. Ct. App.) (drug program fee language treated as a fine/penalty for assessments)
- People v. Martinez, 65 Cal.App.4th 1511 (Cal. Ct. App.) (followed Sierra and treated lab fee as a fine for assessments)
- People v. Watts, 2 Cal.App.5th 223 (Cal. Ct. App.) (concluded lab fee is not a fine/penalty; emphasized statutory label and legislative history)
- People v. Turner, 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App.) (recognized line of authority treating lab fee as settled fine for assessments)