State v. Johnson, 430 P.3d 494

Background

In 2008 Johnson pleaded guilty to two counts of felony theft related to defrauding elderly insurance clients; the District Court imposed concurrent six-year deferred sentences (2010) and ordered $87,339.50 restitution plus interest and supervision fees.
Over the six-year deferral Johnson paid about $3,799 and made no payment for seven months before the State filed to revoke his deferred sentence for failure to make a good faith effort to pay restitution.
Johnson worked sporadically (14–16 months total across several jobs), declined lower‑paying steady work, received some unemployment, food stamps, a $500 monthly family payment, and small commissions, and had a large unpaid tax liability; probation officers testified he failed to make bona fide efforts to obtain steady employment.
At the revocation hearing the District Court found that Johnson did not make a good faith effort to pay restitution, revoked the deferred sentence, and imposed a new deferred sentence with the same conditions (including monthly income/expense reporting).
Johnson appealed, arguing (1) substantial evidence did not support the finding of lack of good faith; (2) revocation violated equal protection and due process because alternatives were not considered; and (3) restitution is a fine barred by the Montana Excessive Fines Clause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports finding Johnson did not make a good faith effort to pay restitution	Johnson: he could not afford payments and made efforts; indigence prevented payment	State: evidence (probation officers, income sources, payment priorities) shows Johnson did not make bona fide efforts	Affirmed — substantial credible evidence supports District Court's factual finding of lack of good faith effort
Whether revocation for failure to pay restitution violated equal protection / due process	Johnson: court should have considered alternatives before revocation; imprisonment/deprivation for inability to pay violates Fourteenth Amendment	State: Bearden requires inquiry and protection only when defendant made all reasonable efforts; here defendant failed that showing	Revocation did not violate due process/equal protection because court found failure to make bona fide efforts (Bearden satisfied)
Whether restitution is a fine under Montana's Excessive Fines Clause	Johnson: restitution functions as punitive and thus could be an excessive fine	State: Montana restitution statutes are remedial—designed to compensate victims, not punish	Restitution is remedial, not a fine under Mont. Const. art. II, § 22; Good overruled on this point
Appropriate remedy after failure to pay	Johnson: alternatives (e.g., extended payment time) should have been considered	State: alternatives need only be considered if defendant showed all reasonable efforts to pay	District Court effectively extended/continued deferral and imposed reporting; revocation and reimposition was permissible given factual finding

Key Cases Cited

State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 116, 360 Mont. 443, 254 P.3d 578 (affirming original deferred sentences and restitution order) (procedural background and prior appeal)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay without finding defendant at fault or lacking bona fide efforts to pay)
State v. Welling, 2002 MT 308, 313 Mont. 67, 59 P.3d 1146 (failure to pay excused when due to bona fide inability despite good faith efforts)
Bucher v. Hughes, 2010 MT 147, 357 Mont. 19, 235 P.3d 1281 (parole officer testimony can establish reasonable monthly payment capacity)
MacPheat v. Mahoney, 2000 MT 62, 299 Mont. 46, 997 P.2d 753 (characterizing Bearden’s principle regarding fairness and inability to pay)
State v. Barrick, 2015 MT 94, 378 Mont. 441, 347 P.3d 241 (Montana restitution statutes are remedial; purpose is to compensate victims)
State v. Fenner, 2014 MT 131, 375 Mont. 131, 325 P.3d 691 (duty to repay victims and how restitution amounts are determined)
State v. Benn, 2012 MT 33, 364 Mont. 153, 274 P.3d 47 (restitution obligations survive completion of sentence and can be enforced against estate)
State v. Good, 2004 MT 296, 323 Mont. 378, 100 P.3d 644 (overruled in part by this opinion insofar as it treated restitution as punitive)
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (excessive fines analysis: a fine is punishment and is grossly disproportionate if excessive)