State v. Heath5/14/2004
Submitted on Briefs: August 22, 2003
Douglas Heath (Heath) entered guilty pleas to one count of theft, for violation of § 45-6-301(1)(a), MCA (1999), a felony, and one count of possession of burglary tools, a violation of § 45-6-205, MCA, a misdemeanor, and, on April 19, 2001, was sentenced to a term of ten years in the Montana State Prison, with two years suspended upon conditions, including payment of restitution. Heath appealed from the judgment, challenging the District Court's imposition of restitution on several grounds.
On February 5, 2002, this Court entered an order, sua sponte , indicating that "we have determined that the trial court did not consider and the parties have not addressed an issue that may be dispositive of this appeal." Our order referenced a footnote in this Court's opinion in State v. Horton , 2001 MT 100, 305 Mont. 242, 25 P.3d 886, issued June 12, 2001, which explained that "an apparent codification error" in the 1999 amendments to § 46-18201, MCA, had raised a question about a sentencing court's continued authority to impose restitution as a condition of a suspended execution of sentence. Horton , 28, n. 3. We remanded for further consideration " ecause the trial court and the parties did not consider this issue and because the footnote reference in Horton is dicta," and held the case in abeyance pending further proceedings in the District Court.
The District Court entered an order May 15, 2002, concluding that the 1999 statutory amendments had not eliminated a sentencing court's authority to impose restitution as a condition of a suspended sentence, and affirming Heath's original sentence. Following supplemental briefing, we undertook review of all issues on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
We address the following issues:
1. Did the District Court err by requiring payment of restitution as a condition of the suspended portion of a sentence imposed for a crime committed after October 1, 1999?
2. Did the District Court err in ordering restitution because the Presentence Investigation Report contained insufficient information?
3. Was the amount of restitution ordered by the District Court supported by substantial credible evidence?
4. Did the District Court err by failing to establish the amount, method and time of restitution payments?
BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2000, Donald and Renate Cooper, en route on their move from Colorado to Washington, checked into a hotel in Billings. In the early morning hours of June 6, the Coopers were notified by hotel personnel that their vehicle had been broken into. Two suitcases and a bag containing clothes, books, a camera, miscellaneous items, and, particularly, a large jewelry collection, had been taken. The jewelry collection had been gifted to Renate Cooper (Cooper) by her mother, a resident of Germany who had accumulated the collection over a forty-year period. The collection consisted of over 120 pieces, including rings, bracelets, necklaces, pendants, broaches and earrings which held diamonds, pearls, sapphires, rubies, emeralds, quartz and other precious gems.
Police later arrested and charged Heath in connection with the crime. Part of the jewelry collection was recovered. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Heath entered guilty pleas to felony theft and misdemeanor possession of burglary tools, and a presentence investigation report (PSI) was thereafter completed, which included Cooper's detailed itemization of the jewelry collection. Cooper estimated the value of the entire collection, which was not sepa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|