State v. Hood

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a restitution condition requiring Richard Hood to pay more than $92,000 following his arson conviction. The court held that Hood’s challenges were unpreserved, his due process claim was premature, the restitution was statutorily authorized, and plain-error review was unwarranted.

Holdings

1. A defendant generally may not obtain appellate review of a sentencing issue that was not raised in the district court by objection.
2. The restitution ordered in Hood's case was within statutory parameters because restitution was statutorily required.
3. Hood's claims did not fall within the State v. Lenihan exception to the preservation requirement for sentencing challenges.
4. Hood's due-process claim was premature because the record did not show that his suspended sentence had been revoked for failure to pay restitution despite good-faith efforts.
5. The court declined to exercise plain-error review because the narrow criteria for invoking that inherent power were not present.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hood's challenge to the restitution condition was preserved for appellate review when he made no objection in the district court.
2. Whether the restitution condition was illegal because it allegedly exceeded statutory authority.
3. Whether the restitution condition constituted an unconstitutionally excessive fine.
4. Whether the restitution condition violated due process by requiring payment at a rate greater than Hood could reasonably bear.
5. Whether the court should exercise plain-error review.

Disposition

affirmed