California v. Martinez
Annotate this CaseJulio Martinez III, was convicted of possessing and transporting a controlled substance. In addition to three years of supervised probation, the trial court ordered Martinez to pay two mandatory fees: a $50 crime-lab fee and a $150 drug program fee. The court concluded both these “fees” were actually “fines” subject to additional assessments, penalties, and a surcharge (collectively referred to as penalty assessments). On appeal, Martinez contended statutory fees were not penal in nature and, therefore, not subject to penalty assessments. The Court of Appeal found a split of authority in the appellate courts on this issue. Almost all California appellate districts, except this court, have weighed in on the topic (albeit in unpublished opinions). As noted by one appellate court, "the conflict will likely require resolution by our Supreme Court." In the meantime, the Court agreed n the meantime, the case was remanded for recalculation of the criminal laboratory analysis and drug program fees on each count without the addition of penalty assessments. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.