State v. M. Daricek
2018 MT 31
Mont.2018Background
- Michael Daricek pleaded no contest to felony DUI (fourth offense) after a January 2016 snowmobile crash; charged in Ravalli County.
- PSI showed Daricek was 41, married with five children, employed at $13/hr, had $55,500 in assets (tools/vehicles), ~$8,000 medical debt, possible ~$6,000 child-support arrearage, and $950 monthly rent.
- District Court sentenced Daricek to 13 months in the Department of Corrections with a 5-year suspended term, a $1,000 fine, and adopted PSI conditions including: "if financially able, pay costs of imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment" (condition 32).
- Defense objected that the court failed to determine Daricek’s ability to pay; the court found on the record that Daricek was fit, able to work, employed, and could earn money to pay costs.
- Daricek appealed, arguing the court needed a more detailed inquiry and calculation of anticipated costs before imposing the conditional-payment requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court improperly imposed a condition requiring payment of imprisonment, probation, and alcohol-treatment costs without determining ability to pay | State: § 61-8-731(4)(b) requires the court to order the condition; Department statutes vest authority to set amounts and consider ability to pay after sentencing | Daricek: Court had to calculate/estimate costs and make specific findings about assets, debts, and future ability to pay before imposing the condition | Court affirmed: imposing the condition (qualified "if financially able") complied with § 61-8-731(4)(b); Department is authorized to determine amounts and consider ability to pay post-sentencing; district court made sufficient findings about employability to satisfy Mingus requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rickman, 183 P.3d 49 (Mont. 2008) (sentence review for legality when one year+ incarceration imposed)
- City of Bozeman v. Cantu, 296 P.3d 461 (Mont. 2013) (standard for reviewing sentencing-condition reasonableness)
- State v. Mingus, 84 P.3d 658 (Mont. 2004) (sentencing court must make specific findings to determine defendant’s ability to pay when conditioning costs)
- State v. Thompson, 394 P.3d 197 (Mont. 2017) (de novo review for legality of sentence)
- State v. Reynolds, 408 P.3d 503 (Mont. 2017) (finding a defendant able to pay is a factual determination reviewed for clear error)