State v. Dietsch, 2013 MT 245

In February 2011, a 17-year-old Dietsch convinced 12-year-old C.C. to join him and two friends at his mother’s home while his mother was away.
Dietsch pressured C.C. to have sex; he carried her to a bathroom, removed clothing, and had sexual intercourse with her.
C.C. reported the incident; police were alerted and Dietsch was charged as an adult with sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault.
Dietsch moved to transfer the case to Youth Court; the District Court denied transfer, citing community protection and offense nature.
Dietsch pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in a plea agreement, with the State dropping the sexual intercourse without consent charge, and the District Court imposed a deferred sentence of 6 years and 60 days in jail with conditions.
The District Court imposed restitution and other conditions, including restitution to the victim and reporting requirements; Dietsch appeals the transfer denial and the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying transfer to Youth Court?	Dietsch asserts lack of substantial evidence supporting denial.	State contends transfer denial was proper given offense nature and community protection concerns.	No abuse; transfer denial affirmed.
Whether the District Court imposed a lawful sentence?	Dietsch challenges excessive restitution and improper costs; argues lack of continued jurisdiction.	State argues costs and conditions were lawful but require remand for corrections.	Remand for correction: strike improper $800 defense-cost amount; strike non-nexus reporting condition; affirm remaining aspects; require continuing jurisdiction and biannual DOC reports; restore explicit restitution amount on remand.

State v. Whiteman, 325 Mont. 358, 106 P.3d 543 (2005 MT 15) (transfer decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Deines, 208 P.3d 857 (2009 MT 179) (credibility of district court as trier of fact; standard of review for evidence)
State v. Ashby, 179 P.3d 1164 (2008 MT 83) (nexus requirement for rehabilitative conditions)
State v. Guill, 248 P.3d 826 (2011 MT 32) (restitution must specify total amount)
State v. Heafner, 231 P.3d 1087 (2010 MT 87) (restitution calculation and sentencing requirements)
State v. Johnson, 265 P.3d 638 (2011 MT 286) (remand for statutory restitution procedures)
State v. Johnson, 362 Mont. 473, 265 P.3d 638 (2011 MT 286) (restatement of restitution/continuing jurisdiction principles)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164 (2008 MT 83) (nexus for rehabilitative conditions)