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.