Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA069507
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 29, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. On page 14, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are deleted in their entirety. The following paragraphs are inserted in their place:
The People rely on People v. Chavez (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1288 for the proposition that the Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a), state court construction penalty applies to the restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and parole revocation fines (§ 1202.45). The Supreme Court granted review of Chavez on August 15, 2007 (No. S153920). Later, on October 24, 2007, the Supreme Court dismissed review and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal in light of the Legislature’s amendment of Government Code section 70372 (Stats. 2007, ch. 302, § 2). The amendment was intended “to reject the interpretation given to the law in” Chavez. (Stats. 2007, ch. 302, § 22.) Defendant is entitled to the benefit of this amendment. (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305; People v. McCoy (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1257.) Accordingly, the state court construction penalty does not apply to the restitution and parole revocation fines. (McCoy, supra, at pp. 1256-1257.)
The trial court properly imposed a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)). However, penalty assessments in the amount of $50 pursuant to section 1464, subdivision (a), and $35 pursuant to Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a), should have been imposed on the laboratory analysis fee. (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153-1154.) The trial court is also obligated to impose a 20 percent state surcharge, i.e., $10 on the laboratory analysis fee in accordance with section 1465.7, subdivisions (a) and (b). (People v. McCoy, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1257; People v. Martinez (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1522.)
The trial court was required to impose a state court construction penalty of $25 on the laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)). (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a).) However, pursuant to the Legislature’s amendment of Government Code section 70372 in response to Chavez, no state court construction penalty is to be imposed on either the section 1464, subdivision (a), penalty assessment or the Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a), penalty assessment. (People v. McCoy, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1256.)
Defendant contends the case must be remanded for a determination as to whether the amount of the state court construction penalty to be imposed must be reduced pursuant to Government Code section 70375, subdivision (b). He relies on People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 454, which held that the state court construction penalty must be reduced depending on whether a county contributes to the local Courthouse Construction Fund or the Transitional State Court Facilities Construction Fund. (Id. at p. 460.) Chavez held that the reduction specified in Government Code section 70375, subdivision (b), refers not to the state court construction penalty but to the funds transferred by a county treasurer to the State Controller as required by Government Code section 70372, subdivision (f). The Legislature amended Government Code section 70375, subdivision (b), to clarify the meaning of the statute and to reject the interpretation given to it by Chavez. (Stats. 2007, ch. 302, §§ 3, 22.) Accordingly, this case must be remanded for a determination as to whether the state court construction penalty must be reduced pursuant to Government Code section 70375, subdivision (b).
2. On page 15, lines 3 through 7 are deleted. The following is inserted in their place:
agree. The People rely on People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, which held that the plain language of section 1465.8 provides that a court security fee attaches to each conviction, not each case. (Schoeb, supra, at pp. 865-866.) Defendant Schoeb pled guilty to nine charges in five separate cases, so the court concluded that nine court security fees should be imposed. (Id. at pp. 866-867.) In the recent case of People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, the Supreme Court cited Schoeb with approval, reiterating that a $20 court security fee must be imposed in connection with each conviction. (Id. at p. 758, fn. 6.) Thus, four separate $20 court security fees must be imposed pursuant to section 1465.8, one for each of defendant’s convictions. The trial court erred in imposing only one such fee.
3. On page 16, lines 5 through 12 are deleted. The following is inserted in their place:
additional penalties: (1) a $50 penalty assessment on the laboratory analysis fee (§ 1464, subd. (a)); (2) a $35 penalty assessment on the laboratory analysis fee (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)); (3) a $10 state surcharge on the laboratory analysis fee (§ 1465.7, subds. (a) & (b)); and (4) a state court construction penalty of $25 on the laboratory analysis fee (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)), subject to the trial court’s determination as to whether there are any applicable reductions under Government Code section 70375, subdivision (b). The trial court shall also impose three additional $20 court security fees (§ 1465.8). As amended, the judgment shall be deemed affirmed as of the date of its reinstatement.
This modification changes the judgment. Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied.
JACKSON, J VOGEL, Acting P. J. ROTHSCHILD, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.