How should Georgia clerks of court calculate and distribute the Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund (POPTF) penalty and other surcharges on criminal and traffic fines, especially when the sentencing judge does not mention them, when the defendant pays only part of the fine, or when the court is a probate court?

Plain-English summary

Every criminal or traffic fine imposed in Georgia carries a stack of additional penalties and surcharges, including the Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund (POPTF) penalty under O.C.G.A. § 15-21-73 (10% of the fine, capped at $50). The State Auditor asked the AG to resolve five recurring questions clerks were facing when handling these fines.

1. Does the clerk impose the POPTF penalty when the sentencing judge does not mention it?

Yes. The General Assembly mandated in O.C.G.A. § 15-21-73(a)(1) that "there shall be imposed as an additional penalty" the POPTF amount. The penalty is imposed by operation of law in every case. The clerk is the court officer charged with the duty of collecting moneys arising from fines (§ 15-21-74), so the clerk must assess and collect the penalty even when the judge does not explicitly mention it during the oral pronouncement of sentence. A 1983 AG opinion (1983 Op. Att'y Gen. 83-80) had said the clerk "may" add the penalty; the AG clarified that the word "may" referred to the clerk's authority, not to the mandatory nature of the assessment. The penalty is mandatory.

2. When calculating the 10%/$50 POPTF penalty, are court costs part of the "original fine"?

Yes. The statute says the fine "shall be construed to include costs" and the penalty is "the lesser of $50.00 or 10 percent of the original fine." On a $500 fine plus $100 court costs, the total is $600; 10% is $60, which exceeds the $50 cap, so the POPTF penalty is $50, not $50-plus-an-extra-$10. The opinion notes that this interpretation is consistent with prior unofficial AG opinions (1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-14; 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. U84-18) and with Barraco v. State, 252 Ga. App. 25, 25-26 (2001).

3. Under the superior court priority list (O.C.G.A. § 15-6-95), are partial payments distributed pro rata or in strict priority?

Strict priority. The statute lists nine recipients in priority order. Partial payments must be applied in full to the highest-priority recipient first; only after that recipient is paid in full does any money flow to the next priority. If a defendant only ever pays part, the lowest-priority recipients may receive nothing in that particular case. The opinion adds that if the sentencing court later amends the original fine downward to the amount paid (rather than just suspending the unpaid balance), the clerk must recalculate the percentage-based surcharges to keep them statutorily consistent with the new fine.

4. In probate court, are partial payments distributed proportionally?

Yes. There is no statutory priority scheme equivalent to § 15-6-95 for probate courts, so partial payments are distributed proportionally between the fine and the various surcharges, with the percentage going to each surcharge fund determined by its share within the surcharge category. This was already the rule in 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-8 and remains the rule. The same caveat applies: if the court later amends the original fine, the clerk must recalculate and redistribute.

5. Does the proportional rule apply to other courts (magistrate, municipal, state) that lack a statutory priority list?

Yes. Wherever the General Assembly has not imposed a priority order, partial payments are distributed proportionally among the fine and surcharge funds.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

In particular, the universe of fines, fees, and surcharges in Georgia criminal and traffic cases has grown significantly since 2003, and several rate caps, priority orders, and dedicated-fund formulas have changed. Anyone administering POPTF or related collections in 2026 should consult the current versions of O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-70 through 15-21-77 and § 15-6-95, plus any subsequent AG opinions.

Common questions

Q: Does a sentencing judge have to verbally mention the POPTF penalty?
A: No. The opinion explains the penalty is imposed by operation of law. The judge is not required to articulate it on the record (though the AG suggests doing so "would probably avoid misunderstanding"). The clerk's duty to assess the POPTF amount is independent of whether the judge mentions it.

Q: What happens if the defendant pays only $200 of a $600 obligation?
A: It depends on the court. In a superior court, follow § 15-6-95: pay the highest-priority recipient first. In a probate, magistrate, or municipal court, distribute the $200 proportionally between the fine and each surcharge fund. The AG draws this line because § 15-6-95 expressly applies "to clerks of the superior courts."

Q: What if the court reduces the original fine to the amount actually paid?
A: The clerk must recalculate the percentage-based surcharges to match the new (lower) fine and redistribute any amounts already collected. Because most surcharges are calculated as a percentage of the original fine, a lower base means lower surcharges. If the court instead simply suspends the unpaid balance, the surcharges remain calculated on the original (higher) fine.

Q: How does the $50 cap on the POPTF penalty interact with court costs?
A: Court costs are folded into the "original fine" for the calculation. The cap is the lesser of $50 or 10% of the combined fine + costs. Even on very large fines, the POPTF penalty cannot exceed $50 per case.

Q: Is the priority list in § 15-6-95 the same in 2026?
A: This needs verifying. The General Assembly periodically reorganizes the priority of fines, surcharges, and dedicated-fund payments as it adds and renames statewide funds. The 2003 opinion describes the list as having nine recipients; the current list may have a different number and order.

Q: Where does the POPTF money go?
A: The Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund supports training programs for Georgia peace officers and prosecutors. The fund's enabling statutes are codified at O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-70 through 15-21-77.

Background and statutory framework

Georgia layers several types of charges on top of any criminal or traffic fine:

• The base fine itself.
• Court costs (which the statute folds into the "fine" for surcharge-calculation purposes).
• The POPTF penalty under § 15-21-73 (10% / $50 cap), which goes into the Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund.
• Other dedicated-fund surcharges (drug treatment, victim assistance, indigent defense, etc.) that vary by case type.

The clerk of court has the duty under § 15-21-74 to assess and collect the POPTF penalty, regardless of whether the judge orally mentions it. For superior courts, § 15-6-95 sets a strict priority list that governs how partial payments cascade through the recipients. For other courts, the General Assembly has not imposed a priority order, so the AG defaulted to a proportional-distribution rule.

The 2003 opinion also wrestled with what happens when courts modify sentences after partial payment. Because most surcharges are percentage-based, a sentence modification (reducing the fine) requires recalculation of the surcharge totals; otherwise the clerk has over-collected for the dedicated funds. The opinion's instruction is to recalculate and redistribute any excess.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-70 through 15-21-77 (Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund Act of 1983)
- O.C.G.A. § 15-21-73 (additional penalty); § 15-21-73(a)(1) (calculation method)
- O.C.G.A. § 15-21-74 (clerk's duty to assess and collect)
- O.C.G.A. § 15-6-95 (superior court partial payment distribution priority)
- O.C.G.A. § 15-21-100(a) (drug-conviction additional penalty, parallel calculation)

Cases:
- Barraco v. State, 252 Ga. App. 25 (2001) (court costs included in fine for surcharge calculation)

Other AG opinions:
- 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. 83-80 (clarified by this opinion: clerk's authority to add penalty is mandatory, not permissive)
- 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-10 (clerk as collector of POPTF penalty)
- 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-14; 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. U84-18 (court costs included in original fine)
- 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-8 (proportional distribution rule for probate court partial payments)

Source

• Landing page: https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/2003-4
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

You have requested my opinion on five issues concerning the imposition, collection, and distribution of additional penalties and surcharges on criminal and traffic fines, including specific questions on the Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Fund Act of 1983 (hereinafter "POPTF"), O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-70 through 15-21-77. I will address these questions in the order they appear in your letter. Your first question is whether, in circumstances where an additional penalty is required to be imposed for a criminal or traffic law violation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-21-73, a clerk of court is "required to impose" the additional POPTF penalty in the event the sentencing judge does not specifically refer to the additional penalty when sentence is pronounced. When a sentencing judge imposes a fine for the violation of a criminal or traffic law, the General Assembly has mandated that "there shall be imposed as an additional penalty a sum equal to the lesser of $50.00 or 10 percent of the original fine." O.C.G.A. § 15-21-73(a)(1) (emphasis added). Previously, this office has opined that although it would "probably avoid misunderstanding" to do so explicitly, a sentencing judge is not required to set forth specifically the additional penalty during the judge's oral pronouncement of sentence. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. 83-80, at 182. This is so because the "additional penalty" is imposed by operation of law; it is required in every case in which a criminal or traffic fine is imposed. While the sentencing judge may not reference the POPTF "additional penalty" in the oral pronouncement of sentence, "[t]he sums provided for in Code Section 15-21-73 shall be assessed and collected by the court officer charged with the duty of collecting moneys arising from fines." O.C.G.A. § 15-21-74 (emphasis added). Since the clerk of court is the court officer charged with the duties of collecting the POPTF "additional penalty," see 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-10, it is my opinion that the clerk is therefore required to "assess" the POPTF "additional penalty" when the sentencing judge's oral pronouncement of sentence is silent on that issue. In a previous opinion, this office stated that the "additional penalty . . . may be added on by the respective court officer whose duty it is to collect the moneys in each particular case." 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. 83-80 (emphasis added). You mention in your letter that some clerks have used this statement as justification not to add the additional penalty when the sentencing judge's oral pronouncement is silent. However, under O.C.G.A. § 15-21-73 the assessment by the clerk is mandatory. The use of the word "may" in that opinion indicates merely that the clerk has the authority to assess the penalty when the trial court does not explicitly do so. Your second question is whether, when calculating the POPTF additional penalty, court costs are to be included in the "original fine" amount or are court costs a separate fine against which POPTF additional penalty must be separately calculated and assessed? In your letter you have offered the example of a $500 fine with court costs of $100. Thus your question is whether the additional penalty amount is $50.00 (10% of $500.00) plus a second additional penalty amount of $10.00 (10% of $100.00), or is the total additional penalty only $50.00, the maximum authorized by statute, since 10% of the $600.00 total (fine plus court costs) is $60.00. O.C.G.A. § 15-21-73(a)(1) states that the fine amount from which the additional penalty is to be calculated "shall be construed to include costs . . . [and shall be] a sum equal to the lesser of $50.00 or 10 percent of the original fine." Given this language in the statute, it is my opinion that court costs are to be included in calculating the original fine amount on which the additional penalty is calculated. Thus, in your example, the additional POPTF penalty would total only $50.00. This interpretation is consistent with previous unofficial opinions of this office concerning the calculation of additional penalties under this Code section and for certain drug convictions pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-21-100(a). See 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-14; 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. U84-18. This interpretation subsequently has been embraced by the Court of Appeals of Georgia. See Barraco v. State , 252 Ga. App. 25, 25-26 (2001). Your third question is whether O.C.G.A. § 15-6-95, the superior court partial payment distribution priority list, requires that amounts owed to higher priority recipients be paid in their entirety before distributions are made to a lower priority recipient. It is my opinion that the amount owing to a higher priority recipient must be paid in its entirety before distribution is made to a lower priority recipient. Before listing the nine recipients, the Code section provides that a superior court clerk "shall distribute said sums in the order of priority set forth below." Were partial payments to be distributed pro rata to the nine recipients as they are received, the priority payment schedule enacted by the General Assembly would be negated, i.e., there would be no "priority." The Code section obligates the clerk to pay, in the order established by the General Assembly, " the amount," " the surcharge," or " the balance" owed to the highest priority recipient before a distribution is made to the next priority recipient. If a person is ultimately unable to pay the total amount assessed, lower priority funds may receive no payment in that particular case. As an additional part of this question, you ask whether the superior court clerk must modify the additional penalty and surcharge amounts owed if the superior court amends the sentence to reduce the original fine to the amount paid to date in the case of a defendant who has made partial payments. If the sentencing court amends the fine to the amount paid rather than merely suspending payment of the remaining balance, it is my opinion that the clerk, as the court officer charged with the duty of assessing and collecting those amounts, must amend the additional penalty and surcharge amounts so as to make them statutorily consistent with the amended original fine. Because many of these additional penalties and surcharges are calculated as a percentage of the original fine amount, the change to the original fine amount will necessarily result in a change to the percentage-based additional penalties and surcharges. In your fourth question you ask whether a previous opinion of this office, 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-8, states that partial payments received by a probate court must be distributed proportionally between the fine and the surcharges, with the percentage remitted to each surcharge fund then determined by its percentage within the surcharge category. That opinion noted that "[t]here is no statutory system of priorities applicable to probate courts which would be comparable to the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 15-6-95, which is applicable to clerks of the superior courts" before concluding that, with regard to probate courts, "in the absence of any system of priorities established by law . . . the sums collected should be paid to each fund in a proportional amount to the sums collected as each payment is received." Id. at 117. In the absence of such statutory priorities, this remains sound advice. However, in the event partial payments are distributed in this manner and the sentencing court subsequently amends the original fine amount, the amount due each particular fund would need to be recalculated and any excess distributions redistributed by the court officer charged with the duty of collecting moneys arising from fines. Your fifth question is whether the proportional distribution system discussed in regard to probate courts in 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. U96-8 should be applied to any court collecting fines and fees other than a superior court. Absent statutory direction from the General Assembly to the contrary regarding payment priority, it is my opinion that a proportional or pro rata distribution system is appropriate for any court that is legally required to collect fines and moneys arising from fines. This opinion has addressed miscellaneous questions regarding the imposition, collection, and distribution of additional penalties and surcharges on criminal and traffic fines, including specific questions on the Peace Officer and Prosecutor Training Act of 1983. I trust it is responsive to your inquiry. Prepared by: J. JAYSON PHILLIPS Assistant Attorney General