Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 18
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103 (2026)

Source of revenues - allocation of money - repeal

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) For offenses committed on and after July 1, 1996, each drug offender who is convicted, or receives a deferred sentence pursuant to section 18-1.3-102, shall be required to pay a surcharge to the clerk of the court in the county in which the conviction occurs or in which the deferred sentence is entered. Such surcharge shall be in the following amounts:

(a) For each class 2 felony or level 1 drug felony of which a person is convicted, four thousand five hundred dollars;

(b) For each class 3 felony or level 2 drug felony of which a person is convicted, three thousand dollars;

(c) For each class 4 felony or level 3 drug felony of which a person is convicted, two thousand dollars;

(d) For each class 5 felony or level 4 drug felony of which a person is convicted, one thousand five hundred dollars;

(e) For each class 6 felony of which a person is convicted, one thousand two hundred fifty dollars;

(f) For each class 1 misdemeanor or level 1 drug misdemeanor of which a person is convicted, one thousand dollars;

(g) For each class 2 misdemeanor of which a person is convicted, six hundred dollars;

(h) For each class 3 misdemeanor or level 2 drug misdemeanor of which a person is convicted, three hundred dollars.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The clerk of the court shall disburse the surcharge required by subsection (1) of this section as follows:

(a) Five percent shall be deposited by the clerk in the judicial stabilization cash fund created in section 13-32-101 (6) for purposes of administering the disbursal of the surcharge pursuant to this subsection (3).

(b) Four percent shall be disbursed to the investigating agency to cover the costs of fingerprinting and photographing offenders pursuant to section 16-21-104 (1), C.R.S.

(c) One percent shall be disbursed to the sheriff of the county in which the conviction or deferred sentence is entered, to cover the costs of fingerprinting and photographing offenders pursuant to section 18-18-432 (3).

(d) Ninety percent shall be disbursed to the state treasurer who shall credit the same to the correctional treatment cash fund created pursuant to subsection (4) of this section.

(3.5) (a) Repealed.

(b) The general assembly shall appropriate to the correctional treatment cash fund created pursuant to subsection (4) of this section at least seven million six hundred fifty-six thousand two hundred dollars in fiscal year 2012-13 from the general fund, at least nine million five hundred thousand dollars in fiscal year 2013-14 from the general fund, and each year thereafter generated from estimated savings from House Bill 10-1352, enacted in 2010.

(c) The general assembly shall appropriate to the correctional treatment cash fund created pursuant to subsection (4) of this section at least three million five hundred thousand dollars in fiscal year 2014-15 from the general fund generated from estimated savings from Senate Bill 13-250, enacted in 2013.

(4) (a) There is hereby created in the state treasury the correctional treatment cash fund, referred to in this paragraph (a) as the "fund", which consists of moneys appropriated pursuant to section 39-28.8-501, C.R.S., moneys received by the state treasurer pursuant to paragraph (d) of subsection (3) of this section and subsection (3.5) of this section, and, in addition, each year, the general assembly shall appropriate at least two million two hundred thousand dollars generated from estimated savings from the enactment of Senate Bill 03-318, enacted in 2003, to the fund. The moneys in the fund shall be used for the purposes described in paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of this section. All interest derived from the deposit and investment of moneys in the fund shall be credited to the fund. Any moneys not appropriated by the general assembly shall remain in the fund and shall not be transferred or revert to the general fund of the state at the end of any fiscal year. (a.5) Repealed.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (a) of this subsection (4) to the contrary, on April 20, 2009, the state treasurer shall deduct one hundred fifty-one thousand three hundred forty-one dollars from the drug offender surcharge fund and transfer such sum to the general fund.

(c) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (a) of this subsection (4) to the contrary, on July 1, 2009, the state treasurer shall deduct one million three hundred sixty thousand dollars from the drug offender surcharge fund and transfer such sum to the general fund.

(5) (a) The correctional treatment board, hereby created and referred to in this subsection

(5) as the "board", shall prepare an annual treatment funding plan that includes a fair and reasonable allocation of resources for programs throughout the state. The judicial department shall include the annual treatment funding plan in its annual presentation to the joint budget committee.

(b) The board consists of:

(I) The executive director of the department of corrections or his or her designee;

(II) The director of the division of probation services in the judicial department or his or her designee;

(III) The executive director of the department of public safety or his or her designee;

(IV) The commissioner of the behavioral health administration in the department of human services or the commissioner's designee. If the commissioner appoints a designee, the commissioner is encouraged to select someone with expertise in substance use disorder counseling and substance abuse issues.

(V) The state public defender or his or her designee;

(VI) The president of the statewide association representing district attorneys or his or her designee; and

(VII) The president of the statewide association representing county sheriffs or his or her designee.

(c) The board may direct that money in the correctional treatment cash fund may be used for the following purposes:

(I) Alcohol and drug screening, assessment, and evaluation;

(II) Alcohol and drug testing;

(III) Substance abuse education and training;

(IV) An annual statewide conference regarding substance abuse treatment;

(V) Treatment for assessed substance abuse and co-occurring disorders;

(VI) Recovery support services, including offender reentry;

(VII) Administrative support to the correctional treatment board including, but not limited to, facilitating and coordinating data collection, conducting data analysis, developing contracts, preparing reports, scheduling and staffing board and subcommittee meetings, and engaging in budget planning and analysis; and

(VIII) (A) The study of health effects of felonizing fentanyl possession pursuant to section 27-50-802.

(B) This subsection (5)(c)(VIII) is repealed, effective July 1, 2025.

(IX) Drug overdose prevention, including medication-assisted treatment for opiate dependence, opioid antagonists, and non-laboratory synthetic opiate detection tests.

(d) Moneys from the correctional treatment cash fund may be used to serve the following populations:

(I) Adults and juveniles on diversion for a state offense and adults and juveniles under supervision in a pretrial diversion program for a state offense;

(II) Adults and juveniles serving a probation sentence for a state offense, including Denver county;

(III) Adults and juveniles on parole;

(IV) Offenders sentenced or transitioned to a community corrections program;

(V) Offenders serving a sentence in a county jail, on a work-release program supervised by the county jail, or receiving after-care treatment following release from jail if the offender participated in a jail treatment program; and

(VI) Offenders on bond or on summons, with a pending criminal case in a pre-trial treatment program.

(e) Before adopting the annual treatment fund plan, the board shall review the information specified in paragraph (f) of this subsection (5) and shall consider proposals from the drug offender treatment boards created in section 18-19-104 for funding local assessed treatment needs.

(f) The board shall determine the scope, method, and frequency of the data collection and the parties responsible for data collection, analysis, and reporting. The data shall be organized by judicial district and shall include, at a minimum, the following from each treatment program:

(I) Name and location of the program, including the county and judicial district;

(II) The referring criminal agency;

(III) Demographic information including gender and ethnicity;

(IV) Level of treatment delivered;

(V) Actual length of time in treatment for each client;

(VI) Discharge status and, if the status is negative, the reason for the negative discharge; and

(VII) Any special licenses held by the treatment program.

(5.5) Repealed.

(6) (a) The court may not waive any portion of the surcharge required by this section unless the court first finds that the drug offender is financially unable to pay any portion of said surcharge.

(b) The finding required by paragraph (a) of this subsection (6) shall only be made after a hearing at which the drug offender shall have the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence that he is financially unable to pay any portion of the surcharge.

(c) The court shall waive only that portion of the surcharge which the court has found the drug offender is financially unable to pay.

Source: L. 91: Entire article added, p. 445, § 12, effective May 29. L. 93: (3)(c) amended, p. 1779, § 41, effective June 6. L. 94: (2) and (3) amended, p. 1632, § 36, effective May 31; (4) amended, p. 2605, § 5, effective July 1. L. 96: (1) amended, p. 134, § 1, effective March 25. L. 2002: IP(1) and (2) amended, p. 1522, § 218, effective October 1. L. 2003: (5.5) added, p. 2686, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2009: (4) and (5.5) amended, (SB 09-208), ch. 149, p. 621, § 13, effective April 20; (4)(c) added, (SB 09-279), ch. 367, p. 1926, § 5, effective June 1. L. 2010: (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(e), (1)(f), (1)(g), (1)(h), (2), (4)(a), and (5.5)(b) amended and (3.5) added, (HB 10-1352), ch. 259, pp. 1175, 1171, §§ 25, 9, effective August 11. L. 2011: (5.5)(c) added, (SB 11-164), ch. 33, p. 92, § 2, effective March 18. L. 2012: (3)(d), (3.5)(b), (4)(a), (5), and (5.5) amended, (3.5)(a) repealed, and (4)(a.5) added, (HB 12-1310), ch. 268, p. 1407, § 35, effective June 7. L. 2013: (5)(d)(I) amended, (HB 13-1156), ch. 336, p. 1962, § 16, effective August 7; (1) and (2) amended and (3.5)(c) added, (SB 13-250), ch. 333, p. 1935, § 55, effective October 1. L. 2014: (5)(d)(I), (5)(d)(IV), and (5)(d)(V) amended and (5)(d)(VI) added, (SB 14- 163), ch. 391, p. 1978, § 21, effective June 6. L. 2015: (4)(a) amended, (HB 15-1367), ch. 271, p. 1073, § 10, effective June 4. L. 2017: (5)(b)(IV) amended, (SB 17-242), ch. 263, p. 1308, § 147, effective May 25. L. 2018: IP(5)(c) and (5)(c)(VI) amended, (HB 18-1176), ch. 321, p. 1927, § 4, effective May 30. L. 2021: (2) repealed, (HB 21-1090), ch. 157, p. 901, § 4, effective May 20. L. 2022: (3)(a) amended, (HB 22-1336), ch. 132, p. 899, § 2, effective April 25;

(5)(b)(IV) amended, (HB 22-1278), ch. 222, p. 1505, § 47, effective July 1; (5)(c)(VI) and

(5)(c)(VII) amended and (5)(c)(VIII) added, (HB 22-1326), ch. 225, p. 1667, § 44, effective July 1; (5)(c)(VI) and (5)(c)(VII) amended and (5)(c)(IX) added, (HB 22-1326), ch. 225, p. 1644, § 19, effective January 1, 2023. L. 2024: (5)(c)(IX) amended, (HB 24-1037), ch. 458, p. 3170, § 18, effective June 6.

Editor's note: Subsection (4)(a.5) provided for the repeal of subsection (4)(a.5), effective July 1, 2012. (L. 2012, p. 1407.) Subsection (5.5) provided for the repeal of subsection (5.5), effective July 2, 2012. (L. 2012, p. 1407.) Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending the introductory portion to subsection (1) and subsection (2), see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002. For the legislative intent contained in the 2003 act enacting subsection (5.5), see section 1 of chapter 424, Session Laws of Colorado 2003. For the legislative declaration in HB 15-1367, see section 1 of chapter 271, Session Laws of Colorado 2015. For the legislative declaration in SB 17-242, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2017. For the legislative declaration in HB 18-1176, see section 1 of chapter 321, Session Laws of Colorado 2018. For the legislative declaration in HB 22-1326 stating the purpose of, and the provision directing legislative staff agencies to conduct, a post-enactment review pursuant to § 2-2-1201 scheduled in 2024, 2025, and 2027, see sections 1 and 55 of chapter 225, Session Laws of Colorado 2022. To obtain a copy of the review, once completed, go to "Legislative Resources and Requirements" on the Colorado General Assembly's website.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: v. People, 2020 CO 38 (Colo. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
v. People, 2020 CO 38 (Colo. 2020). · cites it 13× “Standard of Review ¶6 The parties assert, and we agree, that whether the sentence imposed during Yeadon’s sentencing hearing was authorized by law is a question that we review 4 We granted certiorari on the following issue: Whether a trial court’s failure to impose the drug…”
People v. DeBorde, 2016 COA 185 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “5 does not affect the amount of the drug offender surcharge required to be imposed under section 18-19-103. Thus, the proper surcharge for a defendant, like DeBorde, who is originally convicted of a class 4 drug felony, is $1500.”
People v. Stead, 845 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 22× “91CR0897, wherein the district court ruled that application of a drug offender surcharge set forth in section 18-19-103, 8B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), does not violate the proscription against ex post facto laws.”
v. Cattaneo, 2020 COA 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 18× “Because Cattaneo’s original sentence announced in open court omitted the surcharge without a finding that he was unable to pay it, the sentence was contrary to section 18-19-103 and, thus, illegal. Yeadon, ¶¶ 50-51; see also Thames, ¶¶ 77-78.”
v. People, 2020 CO 39 (Colo. 2020). · cites it 10× “At Waddell’s combined sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to impose the following surcharges: • the drug offender surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103(1), C.R.S. (2019); • the rural alcohol and substance abuse (“rural”) surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103.”
People v. Archuleta-Ferales, 343 P.3d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “Because we conclude that the district court misconstrued its authority under section 18-19-103(6), C.R.S.2014, to waive any portion of the surcharge, we reverse that part of the sentence and remand for further proceedings.”
People v. McQuarrie, 66 P.3d 181 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “However, we reach a different conclusion with respect to the drug offender surcharge imposed in the mittimus against defendant pursuant to § 18-19-103(1), C.R.S. 2002. The post-sentencing imposition of a statutory surcharge in a criminal case does not, without more, constitute…”
People v. Griffiths, 251 P.3d 462 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 18-19-103(6)(b), C.R.S.2009. Defendant's incarceration does not necessarily render her unable to pay the surcharge.”
People v. Ellington, 854 P.2d 223 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 18× “Appellant Clayton Ellington (Ellington) appeals from a district court order denying a motion to suppress evidence, and from a judgment of conviction requiring Ellington to pay a $2,000 drug offender surcharge.”
People v. Salas, 902 P.2d 398 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). “82, § 18-19-103 at 445 applied only to offenses committed on or after the effective date of the statute.”
People v. Ceja, 904 P.2d 1308 (Colo. 1995). “§ 18-19-103(1), 8B C.R.S. (1995 Supp.). 3 .”
People v. Racheli, 878 P.2d 46 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). “In sentencing the defendant, the trial court imposed a $2,000 drug surcharge pursuant to § 18-19-103(1)00, C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.).”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(1) — 12 cases
v. People, 2020 CO 38 (Colo. 2020). “Standard of Review ¶6 The parties assert, and we agree, that whether the sentence imposed during Yeadon’s sentencing hearing was authorized by law is a question that we review 4 We granted certiorari on the following issue: Whether a trial court’s failure to impose the drug…”
People v. DeBorde, 2016 COA 185 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “5 does not affect the amount of the drug offender surcharge required to be imposed under section 18-19-103. Thus, the proper surcharge for a defendant, like DeBorde, who is originally convicted of a class 4 drug felony, is $1500.”
v. Cattaneo, 2020 COA 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Because Cattaneo’s original sentence announced in open court omitted the surcharge without a finding that he was unable to pay it, the sentence was contrary to section 18-19-103 and, thus, illegal. Yeadon, ¶¶ 50-51; see also Thames, ¶¶ 77-78.”
v. People, 2020 CO 39 (Colo. 2020). “At Waddell’s combined sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to impose the following surcharges: • the drug offender surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103(1), C.R.S. (2019); • the rural alcohol and substance abuse (“rural”) surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103.”
People v. Stead, 845 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1993). “91CR0897, wherein the district court ruled that application of a drug offender surcharge set forth in section 18-19-103, 8B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), does not violate the proscription against ex post facto laws.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(1)(a) — 1 case
v. People, 2020 CO 39 (Colo. 2020). “At Waddell’s combined sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to impose the following surcharges: • the drug offender surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103(1), C.R.S. (2019); • the rural alcohol and substance abuse (“rural”) surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(1)(b) — 3 cases
Peo v. Cannon (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Gonzalez (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Silva (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(1)(e) — 1 case
v. People, 2020 CO 38 (Colo. 2020). “Standard of Review ¶6 The parties assert, and we agree, that whether the sentence imposed during Yeadon’s sentencing hearing was authorized by law is a question that we review 4 We granted certiorari on the following issue: Whether a trial court’s failure to impose the drug…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(3)(d) — 1 case
People v. Stead, 845 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1993). “91CR0897, wherein the district court ruled that application of a drug offender surcharge set forth in section 18-19-103, 8B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), does not violate the proscription against ex post facto laws.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(4) — 1 case
People v. Stead, 845 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1993). “91CR0897, wherein the district court ruled that application of a drug offender surcharge set forth in section 18-19-103, 8B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.), does not violate the proscription against ex post facto laws.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(6) — 3 cases
v. Cattaneo, 2020 COA 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Because Cattaneo’s original sentence announced in open court omitted the surcharge without a finding that he was unable to pay it, the sentence was contrary to section 18-19-103 and, thus, illegal. Yeadon, ¶¶ 50-51; see also Thames, ¶¶ 77-78.”
People v. Archuleta-Ferales, 343 P.3d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “Because we conclude that the district court misconstrued its authority under section 18-19-103(6), C.R.S.2014, to waive any portion of the surcharge, we reverse that part of the sentence and remand for further proceedings.”
People v. McQuarrie, 66 P.3d 181 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “However, we reach a different conclusion with respect to the drug offender surcharge imposed in the mittimus against defendant pursuant to § 18-19-103(1), C.R.S. 2002. The post-sentencing imposition of a statutory surcharge in a criminal case does not, without more, constitute…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(6)(a) — 7 cases
v. People, 2020 CO 38 (Colo. 2020). “Standard of Review ¶6 The parties assert, and we agree, that whether the sentence imposed during Yeadon’s sentencing hearing was authorized by law is a question that we review 4 We granted certiorari on the following issue: Whether a trial court’s failure to impose the drug…”
People v. DeBorde, 2016 COA 185 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “5 does not affect the amount of the drug offender surcharge required to be imposed under section 18-19-103. Thus, the proper surcharge for a defendant, like DeBorde, who is originally convicted of a class 4 drug felony, is $1500.”
v. Cattaneo, 2020 COA 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Because Cattaneo’s original sentence announced in open court omitted the surcharge without a finding that he was unable to pay it, the sentence was contrary to section 18-19-103 and, thus, illegal. Yeadon, ¶¶ 50-51; see also Thames, ¶¶ 77-78.”
v. People, 2020 CO 39 (Colo. 2020). “At Waddell’s combined sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to impose the following surcharges: • the drug offender surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103(1), C.R.S. (2019); • the rural alcohol and substance abuse (“rural”) surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103.”
People v. Archuleta-Ferales, 343 P.3d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “Because we conclude that the district court misconstrued its authority under section 18-19-103(6), C.R.S.2014, to waive any portion of the surcharge, we reverse that part of the sentence and remand for further proceedings.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(6)(b) — 5 cases
v. People, 2020 CO 38 (Colo. 2020). “Standard of Review ¶6 The parties assert, and we agree, that whether the sentence imposed during Yeadon’s sentencing hearing was authorized by law is a question that we review 4 We granted certiorari on the following issue: Whether a trial court’s failure to impose the drug…”
People v. DeBorde, 2016 COA 185 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “5 does not affect the amount of the drug offender surcharge required to be imposed under section 18-19-103. Thus, the proper surcharge for a defendant, like DeBorde, who is originally convicted of a class 4 drug felony, is $1500.”
People v. Griffiths, 251 P.3d 462 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 18-19-103(6)(b), C.R.S.2009. Defendant's incarceration does not necessarily render her unable to pay the surcharge.”
v. People, 2020 CO 39 (Colo. 2020). “At Waddell’s combined sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to impose the following surcharges: • the drug offender surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103(1), C.R.S. (2019); • the rural alcohol and substance abuse (“rural”) surcharge, pursuant to section 18-19-103.”
v. Cattaneo, 2020 COA 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Because Cattaneo’s original sentence announced in open court omitted the surcharge without a finding that he was unable to pay it, the sentence was contrary to section 18-19-103 and, thus, illegal. Yeadon, ¶¶ 50-51; see also Thames, ¶¶ 77-78.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-19-103(6)(c) — 1 case
v. Cattaneo, 2020 COA 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Because Cattaneo’s original sentence announced in open court omitted the surcharge without a finding that he was unable to pay it, the sentence was contrary to section 18-19-103 and, thus, illegal. Yeadon, ¶¶ 50-51; see also Thames, ¶¶ 77-78.”
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.