A. A person convicted of a violation of the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act [30-31-1 NMSA 1978] or a person convicted of distribution or possession of a controlled substance pursuant to municipal ordinance shall be assessed, in addition to any other fee or fine, a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) to defray the costs of chemical and other analyses of controlled substances.
B. Every municipality which has enacted an ordinance making possession or distribution of a controlled substance unlawful shall enact an ordinance to require assessment of the fee pursuant to Subsection A of this section and to provide for transmittal of the money collected to the administrative office of the courts pursuant to Section 31-12-9 NMSA 1978, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 35-14-7 NMSA 1978. All fees collected under this section shall be subject to an audit by the state auditor.
History: Laws 1981, ch. 367, § 2; 1984, ch. 82, § 1; 1988, ch. 14, § 5.
The 1988 amendment, effective July 1, 1988, deleted "misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor for a" preceding "violation" and substituted "seventy-five dollars ($75.00)" for "twenty-five dollars ($25.00)" in Subsection A.
The 1984 amendment added "municipal ordinance requirement" in the catchline, designated the previously undesignated provisions of the section as Subsection A, inserting "or a person convicted of distribution or possession of a controlled substance pursuant to municipal ordinance" therein, and added Subsection B.
Conditional discharge dismissal not "conviction". A dismissal under the conditional discharge statute, Section 30-31-28 NMSA 1978, is not a "conviction" as contemplated by this section, or for any other purpose. State v. Fairbanks, 2004-NMCA-005, 134 N.M. 783, 82 P.3d 954.
Crime lab fee cannot be imposed under conditional discharge. Although the crime lab fee would be authorized if the defendant had entered his guilty plea and received a deferred or suspended probated sentence or if he violated the terms of his probation under the conditional discharge, because he successfully completed his probation and charges were dismissed, the district court did not have authority to impose the fee. State v. Fairbanks, 2004-NMCA-005, 134 N.M. 783, 82 P.3d 954.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.