People v. Watts, 2 Cal. App. 5th 223

Background

Defendant Kellymay Watts pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and was granted 36 months’ probation with various monetary charges, including a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee under Health & Safety Code § 11372.5.
The probation order listed the crime‑lab fee as $190, reflecting the fee plus penalty assessments and surcharges; Watts did not object at sentencing.
On appeal counsel raised whether the § 11372.5 crime‑lab fee is subject to statutory penalty assessments (seven assessments totaling 310%).
The Court reviewed statutory language, legislative history, and precedent addressing whether the fee is a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” that triggers assessments.
The court concluded the statute’s primary paragraph labels the charge a “criminal laboratory analysis fee,” and the second paragraph’s conversion of the fee into a “fine” applies only when no other statute authorizes a fine — a circumstance the court found does not presently occur.
Result: the court struck penalty assessments from the crime‑lab fee, reducing it from $190 to $50, and otherwise affirmed the probation order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 11372.5 $50 crime‑lab charge is a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” subject to statutory penalty assessments	People: Talibdeen and some CAs treated the charge as part of the "total fine," so assessments apply	Watts: The statute calls it a "criminal laboratory analysis fee" that defrays administrative costs and is not punitive; thus assessments do not apply	The fee is not a fine/penalty for purposes of penalty assessments in ordinary cases; assessments stricken and fee fixed at $50
Whether Talibdeen or other precedent conclusively requires assessments on the crime‑lab fee	People: Supreme Court’s decision in Talibdeen shows assessments are mandatory on such increments	Watts: Talibdeen did not decide whether § 11372.5 itself is a fine subject to assessments; it addressed forfeiture/waiver issues and assumed, not held, assessments applied	Court: Talibdeen is not controlling on this specific question because it did not consider § 11372.5’s language; it is not authority for assessments applying to the fee
Proper interpretation of “total fine” and § 11372.5’s two paragraphs	People: "total fine" references and the statute’s language support treating the increment as part of the fine subject to assessments	Watts: "total fine" need not mean the increment is part of the base fine; § 11372.5’s first paragraph calls it a fee and legislative history supports nonpunitive purpose	Court: The first paragraph’s label "criminal laboratory analysis fee" controls; "total fine" wording does not compel treating the increment as a base fine subject to assessments
Scope and effect of § 11372.5 second paragraph (when fee is called a fine)	People: The statute’s second paragraph labels the increment a fine in some circumstances, implying assessments could attach	Watts: The second paragraph applies only where no other statute authorizes a fine; that situation does not exist for listed offenses	Court: Second paragraph applies only to offenses "for which a fine is not authorized by other provisions of law"; currently that set is empty, so paragraph is not applicable here

Key Cases Cited

People v. Talibdeen, 27 Cal.4th 1151 (Supreme Court) (addressed forfeiture/waiver of penalty assessments; did not decide whether § 11372.5 itself is a fine)
People v. Vega, 130 Cal.App.4th 183 (App. Dep’t 2) (characterized § 11372.5 charge as an administrative fee, not punitive)
People v. Martinez, 65 Cal.App.4th 1511 (App. Dep’t 2) (held crime‑lab increment treated as part of the total fine and subject to assessments)
People v. Sierra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1690 (App. Dep’t 5) (held drug‑program increment constituted a fine/penalty and supported assessments)
People v. Moore, 236 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10 (Nev. Cty. Super. Ct. App. Div.) (concluded § 11372.5 fee is not subject to penalty assessments; persuasive on result and adopted here as to holding)