Opinion
2d Crim. No. B278140
10-16-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRUCE DOUGLAS KOHLER, Defendant and Appellant.
Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, John Yang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5. (Super. Ct. No. 2015033752)
(Ventura County)
Bruce Douglas Kohler appeals an order imposing penalty assessments on a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5) and a $150 drug program fee (§ 11372.7) after he was convicted by plea of manufacturing concentrated cannabis (§ 11379.6, subd. (a)) and sentenced to 18 months county jail and 18 months mandatory supervision, for a total fixed term of three years. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B).) The trial court denied a post- sentence motion to vacate the penalty assessments, ruling that the assessments were mandatory. We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Health & Safety Code unless otherwise stated.
Appellant contends that the penalty assessments must be stricken because lab fees and drug program fees are not punitive and not subject to penalty assessments. Penalty assessments apply to any "fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses." (See, e.g., Pen. Code, § 1464, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1); Cal. Criminal Law Procedure & Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2018) § 36.9, p. 1036.)
In People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100, our Supreme Court recently held that a lab fee imposed pursuant to section 11372.5 constitutes "punishment." (Id. at p. 1122.) "Because . . . it is clear the Legislature intended the fees at issue here to be punishment, it is 'unnecessary to pursue any additional inquiry into their underlying character.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) Based on our reading of Ruiz, lab fees (§ 11372.5, subd. (a)) and drug program fees (§ 11372.7, subd. (a)) are subject to mandatory penalty assessments. The trial court did not err in imposing penalty assessments on those fees.
Appellant relies on People v. Watts (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 223 and People Vega (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 183 to argue that lab and drug program fees are not subject to penalty assessments. The court in Ruiz disapproved both cases. (See People v. Ruiz, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 1122, fn. 8.) --------
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
TANGEMAN, J.
Patricia Murphy, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, John Yang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.