THOMPSON, Justice.
In Watson v. State, 256 Ga. App. 789 ( 569 S.E.2d 30) (2002), the court affirmed the imposition of a fine in conjunction with a prison sentence for the offense of criminal attempt to traffic in cocaine. We granted certiorari, and reverse.
In both Gonzalez v. State, 201 Ga. App. 437 ( 411 S.E.2d 345) (1991), and Raftis v. State, 175 Ga. App. 893(7) ( 334 S.E.2d 857) (1985), the Court of Appeals held that the clear language of OCGA § 16-13-33 precludes the imposition of a fine in conjunction with a prison sentence for conspiracy to violate the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. We agree with the reasoning of those cases. And since OCGA § 16-13-33 by its terms applies equally to attempt and conspiracy, it clearly precludes a fine in the present case. As was explained so aptly in Raftis, supra at 898:
OCGA § 16-13-33 provides:
"Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this article [Georgia Controlled Substances Act, OCGA § 16-13-1 et seq.] shall be, upon conviction thereof, punished by imprisonment not exceeding the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy."
[I]f sentencing for the conspiracy for which appellant was convicted was controlled by the general provisions of OCGA § 16-4-8, a sentence of up to 15 years and/or a fine of $12,500 would be authorized. OCGA § 16-4-8 is not, however, the applicable sentencing provision in the instant case. OCGA § 16-13-33 is. "[T]he most reasonable interpretation of the legislative intent in enacting [OCGA § 16-13-33] was to supplant the general punishment provision . . . with a specific (and potentially more harsh) punishment provision for attempt or conspiracy to possess controlled substances." [Cits.] Rather than one-half of the maximum sentence applicable to the substantive crime, OCGA § 16-13-33 provides for potentially harsher punishment in the form of "
imprisonment not exceeding the
maximum punishment prescribed for the [Georgia Controlled Substances Act] offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy." (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 16-13-33 does not, however, make any specific provision for the imposition of a fine. Penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and, in any case of uncertainty, the accused is entitled to have the lesser of two penalties administered. [Cit.]
Since under OCGA § 16-13-33, a conviction for criminal attempt to violate the GCSA does not authorize the imposition of a fine, Watson, supra, is reversed to the extent that it holds to the contrary.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
THOMPSON, Justice.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 10, 2003.