State v. B. Thompson, 2017 Mont. LEXIS 264

Defendant Brandon Thompson convicted of felony DUI, negligent endangerment, and multiple driving offenses; sentencing reduced total fines from $3,520 to $390 in oral pronouncement.
District Court orally incorporated the Presentence Investigation report (PSI) conditions into the sentence; the PSI listed additional fees, costs, and surcharges (some amounts listed "TBD") and included a financial profile of Thompson.
The written judgment, entered ~7 weeks later, imposed specific sums for costs of assigned counsel and jury/service expenses that were detailed in the PSI but not specified in the oral pronouncement.
Thompson appealed, arguing (1) the written judgment imposed fees not articulated at sentencing and (2) the court failed to consider his ability to pay before imposing costs.
The State argued Thompson failed to preserve the ability-to-pay claim by not objecting at sentencing.

Issue	Thompson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether fees/costs in the written judgment conflict with the oral pronouncement	Written judgment must be struck because specific fees were not stated at sentencing and he had no opportunity to object	PSI conditions were incorporated into the oral sentence; defendant had notice and chance to object	No conflict: oral incorporation of the PSI gave notice; written judgment did not unlawfully increase sentence
Whether court erred by imposing costs without considering defendant's ability to pay	Statutes and precedent require an ability-to-pay inquiry before ordering costs; lack of such inquiry renders sentence unlawful	Defendant did not object at sentencing, so issue is waived and not reviewable on appeal	Waived: failure to object at sentencing bars appellate review; court affirms written judgment

State v. Johnson, 302 Mont. 265, 14 P.3d 480 (establishes that the oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgments)
State v. Lane, 288 Mont. 286, 957 P.2d 9 (oral sentence is the legally effective sentence)
State v. Kroll, 322 Mont. 294, 95 P.3d 717 (focus on whether written judgment substantively increased sentence without notice)
State v. McLeod, 313 Mont. 358, 61 P.3d 126 (defendant given opportunity to review/contest PSI undermines due-process challenge)
State v. Starr, 339 Mont. 208, 169 P.3d 697 (court must reconcile ability-to-pay findings with imposition of costs)
State v. Moore, 365 Mont. 13, 277 P.3d 1212 (remand where defendant objected and court had not properly inquired into ability to pay)
State v. Kotwicki, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892 (failure to follow statutory sentencing procedure is objectionable but may be waived)
State v. MacDonald, 370 Mont. 1, 299 P.3d 839 (failure to object to court’s oversight on financial inquiry constitutes waiver)
State v. Phillips, 372 Mont. 317, 312 P.3d 445 (similar waiver holding regarding failure to object to financial inquiry)
State v. Nolan, 314 Mont. 47, 62 P.3d 1118 (issue preservation requires specific contemporaneous objection)