Opinion

In this case, we discuss some new monetary penalties and surcharges that must be imposed by trial courts in many criminal cases.

Following the denial of his motion to traverse a search warrant and suppress evidence (Pen. Code, §§ 1538.5, 1539), defendant Marco Lenel Taylor pled guilty to possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and admitted being armed with a nine-millimeter handgun (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)) and having suffered a prior conviction for possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)) in return *456 for a stipulated 13-year prison sentence. In return, the trial court dismissed charges of possessing cocaine hydrochloride for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), manufacturing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)), conspiring to manufacture and distribute cocaine base (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)), illegally possessing a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and two prior narcotic convictions. The court imposed a restitution fine of $1,000 and a suspended parole revocation restitution fine. Defendant appealed from the denial of his suppression motion.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ].) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

We note an error requiring correction. The trial court failed to impose the $50 drug laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5) plus applicable penalty assessments of $50 (Pen. Code, § 1464) and $35 (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)). It is settled that this fee and the assessments are mandatory. In the interest of judicial economy and because the trial court’s errors and the appellate remedies are clear, we modify the judgment without requesting supplemental briefing. (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153-1157 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 , 46 P.3d 388 ]; People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 851-854 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 14 P.3d 942 ]; People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1413-1416 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ].)

In addition, because this crime was committed on May 23, 2003, two other surcharges are applicable to the drug laboratory analysis fee.

Penal Code section 1465.7 provides:

Therefore, the drug laboratory analysis fee is also subject to a 20 percent state surcharge of $10. (Pen. Code, § 1465.7.) We recognize that this surcharge has not yet been the subject of judicial review. Nevertheless, because the issue seems straightforward, we shall order the imposition of this surcharge. Any aggrieved party may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)

Next, in 2002, the Legislature established the State Court Facilities Construction Fund. (Gov. Code, § 70371.) Effective January 1, 2003, Government Code section 70372 provides:

Although this statute appears to provide for a 50 percent surcharge on fines, the situation is not so simple. This surcharge may be reduced by several factors.

Government Code section 70375 provides, in relevant part:

We are unable to determine whether Sacramento County has established a local courthouse construction fund under Government Code section 76100 or whether Sacramento County is participating in the Transitional State Court Facilities Construction Fund under Government Code section 70401. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether this surcharge should be reduced in accordance with Government Code section 70375. We shall remand the case to the trial court to make these factual findings. As noted, any party aggrieved by this procedure may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)

Any trial court aggrieved by the complexity of these procedures may petition the Legislature for relief.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to reflect imposition of a drug laboratory analysis fee of $50 (Health & Saf. Code § 11372.5), a state penalty assessment of $50 (Pen. Code, § 1464), a county penalty assessment of $35 (Gov. Code, § 76000), and a 20 percent state surcharge of $10 (Pen. Code, § 1465.7). The case is remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of the court facilities surcharge under Government Code sections 70372, 70375, 70401, and 76100.

The trial court shall prepare a new abstract of judgment including the above amounts, and including its finding of the applicable amount of the *461 court facilities surcharge, and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections. In all other aspects, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicholson, J., and Hull, J., concurred.

Government Code section 76100 provides:

Government Code section 70401 provides: