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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
A jury convicted Gregory Allen Spani of possessing methamphetamine for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code 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.
Spani concedes the court properly assessed the $50 lab fee, but contends the court erred in concluding the penalty statutes 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.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:



BENKE, Acting P. J.



DATO, J.