408 P.3d 1288
Mont.2018Background
- In 2013 Kenneth Erickson was convicted of felony criminal endangerment for injuring Gene Johnson; the District Court ordered restitution totaling $356,636.84 (including a 10% administrative fee) payable to Johnson, BCBS of Texas, and the Crime Victim Compensation Program.
- In August 2013 Johnson signed a civil-release settlement: $310,000 paid to him (largely from insurer Mountain West Farm Bureau and $10,000 from Erickson); BCBS accepted $103,333.33 to release its lien.
- The civil releases stated the payments constituted satisfaction of restitution to the extent allowed by law; Erickson also appears to have paid the Crime Victim Compensation Program amount and the 10% fee later.
- Erickson moved in the criminal case to amend/modify the judgment to reflect satisfaction of restitution based on the civil settlement; the State contested, arguing the sentencing court lacked authority or that statutory procedures for adjusting restitution were not followed.
- The District Court denied relief, concluding civil releases do not by themselves discharge criminal sentencing conditions; Erickson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Erickson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred in denying Erickson's motion to modify the criminal judgment to reflect satisfaction of restitution by a civil settlement | There is no entitlement to unilateral modification; Erickson did not meet procedural and statutory requirements of §46-18-246 (notice/hearing and statutory grounds) | The civil releases and payments satisfied the restitution obligations and the judgment should be modified or marked satisfied | The court affirmed that a civil release alone does not automatically satisfy criminal restitution; but reversed the blanket denial of relief under §46-18-246 and remanded so Erickson may properly pursue adjustment/waiver under that statute (he bears the burden to establish statutory grounds and create a factual record) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Passmore, 334 P.3d 378 (Mont. 2014) (describing restitution-adjustment statute and standard for permissive relief)
- State v. Fertterer, 860 P.2d 151 (Mont. 1993) (once sentenced, court generally lacks jurisdiction to modify sentence except as provided by statute)
- People v. Bernal, 101 Cal. App. 4th 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (discussed by parties as persuasive authority regarding interaction of civil releases and criminal restitution)