State v. Spence

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Todd Spence’s motion challenging his continuing obligation to pay restitution after discharge of his sentence. The court held that applying the 2003 amendments to Montana’s restitution statute did not violate the ex post facto prohibition because restitution is not punishment and the amendments did not increase the punishment burden or eliminate an available defense. The memorandum decision was designated noncitable under the Montana Supreme Court’s internal operating rules.

Holdings

1. The application of the 2003 amendments to section 46-18-241, MCA, did not violate ex post facto principles because restitution is not punishment and the amendments did not impose an additional crime, increase the punishment burden, or deprive Spence of a previously available defense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether applying the 2003 amendments to Montana's restitution statute to continue collecting restitution imposed for offenses committed and sentenced before the amendments constituted an ex post facto violation.
2. Whether the 2003 amendments increased Spence's punishment burden, imposed punishment for conduct that was not criminal when committed, or deprived him of a defense available when the offenses occurred.

Disposition

affirmed