Horton v. State, 2017 MT 307N

Horton was convicted of felony DUI in June 2011 and in October 2011 was sentenced to 13 months in the WATCh program followed by a five-year suspended sentence. The sentence required repayment of costs for his public defender.
In 2014 the District Court revoked Horton’s probation, imposed five years in prison, and reinstated all original sentence conditions, including the attorney-fee repayment obligation.
In May 2016 Horton petitioned the District Court to refund amounts already paid toward the public-defender fee and to remove the repayment obligation going forward; the court ordered a response and denied the petition on October 19, 2016.
Horton appealed, arguing the District Court abused its discretion by denying remission of costs and that, under § 46-8-113(6), his repayment should be suspended while incarcerated (a statutory change he did not raise below).
The District Court had considered Horton’s ability to pay at the original sentencing and found he had assets and prison work options; Horton’s changed circumstances (different facility, loss of property) were not presented to the District Court.
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed, ruling the District Court did not abuse its discretion and declining to consider the suspended-repayment argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Horton’s petition for remission of public-defender costs	Horton: incarceration leaves him without resources; court failed to inquire into current ability to pay	State: sentencing court considered ability to pay at sentencing; evidence supported obligation	Denied abuse of discretion; court had considered ability to pay and Horton failed to present new evidence below
Whether Horton has a statutory right to suspend repayment while incarcerated under § 46-8-113(6)	Horton: statute (not in effect at his sentencing) entitles him to suspended repayment while imprisoned	State: issue not raised in district court; cannot be considered first raised on appeal	Court declined to consider the claim because it was not raised below

State v. Griffin, 172 P.3d 1123 (Mont. 2007) (standard: appellate review of discretionary district-court rulings)
State v. Longfellow, 194 P.3d 694 (Mont. 2008) (principle: appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for first time on appeal)