Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-12-281 (2026)
Additional Penalties Prescribed.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) In addition to any disposition and fine authorized by Sections 13A-12-202, 13A-12-203, 13A-12-204, 13A-12-211, 13A-12-212, 13A-12-213, 13A-12-215, or 13A-12-231, or any other statute indicating the dispositions that can be ordered for such a conviction, every person convicted of a violation of any offense defined in the sections set forth above, shall be assessed for each offense an additional penalty fixed at one thousand dollars ($1,000) for a first offense and two thousand dollars ($2,000) for a second or subsequent offense.
(b) All penalties provided for in this division shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any fine authorized by law or required to be imposed pursuant to the provisions of the controlled substance statutes set forth in subsection (a) of this section, and nothing in this division shall be deemed to affect or suspend any other criminal sanctions imposed pursuant to these controlled substance statutes.
(Acts 1990, No. 90-655, p. 1271, §2; Act 2006-560, p. 1297, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Hall v. State, 223 So. 3d 977 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016).
Hall v. State, 223 So. 3d 977 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016). “Over 23 years later, Hall, on April 25, 2015, filed his first Rule 32 petition challenging his guilty-plea conviction and sentence, In that petition, Hall alleged, among other things, that his sentence was “illegal” because, he said, the circuit court failed to impose on him a…”
Poole v. State, 846 So. 2d 370 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “*389 Moreover, the record reflects that the trial court failed to assess the mandatory fines under the Demand Reduction Assessment Act, § 13A-12-281, for Poole's drug convictions.”
Hawk v. State, 171 So. 3d 96 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). “d the following: (1) that the trial court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the case because his arrest was illegal; (2) that the seizure of the controlled substances was unlawful, violating his Fourth Amendment rights; (3) that his guilty plea was not voluntary because, he…”
Woods v. State, 695 So. 2d 636 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “The State has correctly pointed out that in sentencing the appellant the trial court inadvertently neglected to impose the fine found in § 13A-12-281(a), Ala.Code 1975, which must be assessed against a defendant guilty of violating § 13A-12-212, Ala.”
Siercks v. State, 154 So. 3d 1085 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Although we affirm Siercks’s conviction for unlawful, possession of a con *1094 trolled substance, we must remand this case for the trial court to impose the appropriate fines pursuant to § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975, and § 36-18-7(a), Ala.”
McCart v. State, 765 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “However, the trial court should also have imposed a fine in accordance with § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975, for each of the conspiracy to traffic convictions.”
Harris v. State, 826 So. 2d 897 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “1995), the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Demand Reduction Assessment Act, § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975, are mandatory.”
Phelps v. State, 878 So. 2d 1202 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “Furthermore, the trial court's written order includes the assessment of a $1,000 fine in each count, pursuant to § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975. However, before trial, the prosecution gave notice that Phelps had a prior conviction for the unlawful distribution of a controlled…”
Avis Dante Hinkle v. State of Alabama., 86 So. 3d 441 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “This Court has remanded this case twice for the trial court to assess the penalties prescribed under the Demand Reduction Assessment Act, in accordance with § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975, and to impose the fees under the Alabama Forensic Services Trust Fund, pursuant to §…”
Clay v. State, 687 So. 2d 1245 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “The appellant contends that the state has failed to prove that he violated § 13A-12-211 because, he argues, there was not sufficient evidence to show that he had the intent to distribute cocaine and that he in fact distributed it.”
Ex Parte Tiller, 796 So. 2d 310 (Ala. 2001). “Tiller's conviction was a felony conviction, and for that conviction the trial court sentenced her to 22 years' imprisonment; ordered her to pay a $1,000 victim's compensation assessment; fined her $1,000 in accordance with the Alabama Demand Reduction Assessment Act, §…”
Lightfoot v. State, 152 So. 3d 434 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “Code 1975, a $1000 penalty under the Demand Reduction Assessment Act, see § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975, and fines totaling $75,000 pursuant to §§ 13A-12-231(2)a.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-12-281(a) — 23 cases
Woods v. State, 695 So. 2d 636 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “The State has correctly pointed out that in sentencing the appellant the trial court inadvertently neglected to impose the fine found in § 13A-12-281(a), Ala.Code 1975, which must be assessed against a defendant guilty of violating § 13A-12-212, Ala.”
Harris v. State, 826 So. 2d 897 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “1995), the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Demand Reduction Assessment Act, § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975, are mandatory.”
Williams v. State, 995 So. 2d 915 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).
Clay v. State, 687 So. 2d 1245 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “The appellant contends that the state has failed to prove that he violated § 13A-12-211 because, he argues, there was not sufficient evidence to show that he had the intent to distribute cocaine and that he in fact distributed it.”
Pierson v. State, 677 So. 2d 242 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).
— Ala. Code § 13A-12-281(ll) — 1 case
Snow v. State, 197 So. 3d 549 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.