State v. Cleveland, 423 P.3d 1074

Cleveland pleaded guilty to three felony counts (attempted burglary and two burglaries) under a plea agreement that preserved the State's burden to prove restitution amounts.
A restitution hearing followed; several victims submitted affidavits, but two entities (Amusement Services and Payment Alliance) did not file affidavits or testify in person.
Belfry Bar owner Larry Stern submitted an affidavit and testified; his affidavit included amounts attributed to Amusement Services and Payment Alliance though he lacked personal knowledge of those figures.
The District Court awarded restitution: amounts to parties Cleveland did not contest (Bearcreek Saloon, Edgar Bar, Joliet Laundromat), $4,783 to Stern (not appealed), and $4,459 and $2,700 to Amusement Services and Payment Alliance respectively (these two awards were appealed).
Cleveland also challenged the written judgment for not matching the oral sentence (errors in consecutive-sentencing language) and for imposing a $10 technology fee per count rather than per case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution can be awarded to victims without the victim's affidavit or testimony	Cleveland: Statute requires affidavit or testimony from the actual victim to prove pecuniary loss; awards to Amusement Services and Payment Alliance lacked that proof	State: Conceded affidavit/testimony should have been submitted; argued Cleveland failed to preserve the issue for appeal	Reversed: restitution awards to Amusement Services and Payment Alliance vacated; remanded for proper affidavit/testimony under § 46‑18‑242, MCA
Whether the written judgment conforms to the oral sentence	Cleveland: Written judgment misstates consecutive sentencing as pronounced orally	State: Agreement parties recognized the discrepancy	Court: Written judgment did not match oral pronouncement; remand to amend written judgment to conform to oral sentence
Whether technology fee was assessed per count rather than per case	Cleveland: Fee statute permits only one fee per cause/user; per‑count assessment is erroneous	State: Parties agreed statute provides one fee per cause/user	Court: Error; remand to correct fee language from "per count" to "per user"

State v. Dodge, 390 Mont. 69, 408 P.3d 510 (Mont. 2017) (affidavit or testimony required to prove restitution)
State v. Patterson, 385 Mont. 334, 384 P.3d 92 (Mont. 2016) (standard of review for restitution amounts)
State v. Conley, 391 Mont. 164, 415 P.3d 473 (Mont. 2018) (clear‑error standard for factual findings)
State v. Hunt, 352 Mont. 70, 214 P.3d 1234 (Mont. 2009) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge)
McDermott v. Carie, LLC, 329 Mont. 295, 124 P.3d 168 (Mont. 2005) (affidavit reliability and personal knowledge requirement)