P. v. Spani

Filed 7/25/17 P. v. Spani CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GREGORY ALLEN SPANI,
Defendant and Appellant.
D070730
(Super. Ct. No. SCD260074)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E.
Campos, Judge. Affirmed.
Laura R. Sheppard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Marvin E.
Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
A jury convicted Gregory Allen Spani of possessing methamphetamine for sale in
violation of Health and Safety Code1 section 11378. As part of his sentence, the court
imposed a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee (lab fee) under section 11372.5,
subdivision (a), plus penalty assessments on that fee—bringing the total amount of the
lab fee to $205.2
Spani concedes the court properly assessed the $50 lab fee, but contends the court
erred in concluding the penalty statutes3 applied to require an additional penalty on top of
that fee. He raises no other issue on appeal.
There is a split of authority in the Courts of Appeal on this issue. (See People v.
Watts (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 223 [penalty not permitted]; People v. Martinez (1998) 65
Cal.App.4th 1511, 1520-1522 [penalty required].)
Recently, in People v. Alford (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 964 (Alford), this Court
analyzed the conflicting lines of authority and determined the lab fee under section
11372.5, subdivision (a) is subject to additional penalty assessments. We discern no
persuasive reason to depart from Alford. (People v. Bolden (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1591,
1598.)
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
2 Section 11372.5, subdivision (a) provides in part: "Every person who is convicted
of a violation of [specified drug offenses, including section 11378] shall pay a criminal
laboratory analysis fee in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each separate offense."
3 The penalty statutes (Pen. Code, § 1464; Gov. Code, § 76000) mandate that a
court impose a penalty assessment "upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and
collected . . . for criminal offenses" with certain exceptions not applicable here. (See
People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153-1154.)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
DATO, J.

-- 3 of 3 --