GA Code § 15-21-5 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 15 - Courts|Chapter 21 - Payment and Disposition of Fines and Forfeitures|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 15-21-5. Procedure for Filing and Payment of Claims of Officers of Court When Defendant Acquitted or Person Liable Is Insolvent Generally

 Any officer having a claim against the fine and bond forfeitures fund for insolvent costs, or in cases where defendants have been acquitted, if the same accrued in the superior court, or a court of inquiry prior to indictment, shall present to the judge of the superior court an itemized bill of the costs claimed. If the bill of costs is approved by the judge of the superior court, he shall order the bill entered on the minutes of the court; and the order shall operate as a warrant drawn upon the county treasury, to be paid by the county treasurer or other proper county officer or officers in charge of the fiscal affairs of the county out of any fines and bond forfeitures in the treasury received from the superior court.   (Ga. L. 1876, p. 108, § 3; Code 1882, § 4655d; Penal Code 1895, § 1092; Penal Code 1910, § 1119; Code 1933, § 27-2905; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, §§ 3-32, 3-33/HB 233.)    The 2015 amendment,  effective July 1, 2015, substituted "fine and bond forfeitures fund" for "fine and forfeitures fund" near the beginning of the first sentence and substituted "fines and bond forfeitures" for "fines and forfeitures" near the end of the second sentence. See editor's note for applicability.   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 4-1/HB 233, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2015, and shall apply to seizures of property for forfeiture that occur on or after that date. Any such seizure that occurs before July 1, 2015, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such seizure."   Law reviews.   - For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2015).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Officer with claim should present itemized statement of costs.    - Law contemplates that an officer having a claim against an insolvent costs fund should present an itemized statement of costs before being approved. Cooper v. Lunsford, 203 Ga. 166, 45 S.E.2d 395 (1947).   Claims of officers for costs due in transferred cases.    - Officers of the superior court have no lien or claim on account of insolvent costs due the officers in cases transferred from the superior to the county court, upon fines in the county treasury arising in the county upon other cases transferred from the superior court. Hardwick v. Burke, 113 Ga. 999, 39 S.E. 433 (1901).   All fines imposed required to be paid over to county treasurer.    - All fines imposed by a judge of the county court upon persons convicted of a violation of the laws of this state are required to be paid over to the county treasurer. Overstreet v. Rawlings, 106 Ga. 793, 32 S.E. 855 (1899).   No provision authorizing payment of fees from fund if defendant able to pay costs.    - Officers of the court are entitled to receive their fees from the fine and forfeiture fund in cases when the defendants have been acquitted, or when the persons liable by law for the payment of the costs are unable to pay the costs; but there is no provision of law authorizing the payment of these fees from this fund in cases when the convicted defendant is able to pay the costs. Pound v. Faulkner, 193 Ga. 413, 18 S.E.2d 749 (1942).   Effect of valid order approving cost list.    - If three different judges of the superior court approved an itemized bill of cost claimed by officers of the court presenting the bill for approval, in order to nullify the approval thus made, all three orders approving the cost list would have to be invalid; and if any one of the orders is a valid order, the other two could be disregarded as the cost list thus approved would still stand approved. Banks County v. Stark, 212 Ga. 283, 92 S.E.2d 11 (1956).   Order of court for costs is special judgment.    - While an order of a court for insolvent costs is a judgment when placed on the minutes of the court, it is not such a judgment as contemplated under former Code 1933, §§ 110-1001, 110-1002 and 110-1003 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 9-12-60 and9-12-61). Walden v. Bale, 78 Ga. App. 226, 50 S.E.2d 844 (1948).    Cited in Lumpkin County v. Davis, 185 Ga. 393, 195 S.E. 169 (1938); Walden v. Camp, 206 Ga. 593, 58 S.E.2d 175 (1950).   OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL   Duties of those collecting fines and forfeitures.    - For a discussion of the respective duties of the prosecuting attorney, sheriff, and clerk of court in the collection of fines and forfeitures in criminal cases, see 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U83-62 (rendered prior to 1984 amendment of § 15-21-2).   Payment of forfeited bonds into county treasury.    - Funds from bond forfeiture cannot be used to compensate prosecuting witness in bad check case; such funds must be paid into the county treasury and administered in accordance with former Code 1933, §§ 27-2902, 27-2904, and 27-2905 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-2,15-21-3, and15-21-5). 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-197.   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 21A Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 874 et seq. 36 Am. Jur. 2d, Forfeitures and Penalties, § 15 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 36A C.J.S., Fines, §§ 2, 19. 37 C.J.S., Forfeitures, §§ 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 et seq, 39, 41. 80 C.J.S., Sheriffs and Constables, §§ 268 et seq., 281.   ALR.    - Exception as regards payments to officers of court to rule preventing recovery back of payments made under mistake of law, 111 A.L.R. 637.