State v. Passmore, 2014 MT 249

In 2007 Passmore was convicted of two felony sexual offenses against minors and sentenced to 35 years with five years suspended; the court ordered restitution to fund 52 hours of counseling for the victims (maximum $12,100) within five years, based on ability to pay.
Passmore exhausted direct appeal and postconviction relief; convictions and sentences were affirmed in prior Montana Supreme Court decisions.
In April 2013 Passmore (pro se, incarcerated) petitioned the Sixth Judicial District to remit his unpaid restitution; a hearing was held by video in August 2013.
Victims testified they continue to need specialized counseling but lack funds or adequate insurance; the State introduced medical bills and a letter documenting treatment.
District Court found victims credible, denied remission, and extended the five-year claim period by three years; Passmore appealed, arguing victims lied about finances and therefore restitution should be waived under § 46-18-246, MCA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying petition to remit unpaid restitution	State: restitution should remain because victims credibly need counseling and restitution is warranted	Passmore: victims lied about finances and didn’t seek counseling in 5 years, so circumstances changed and restitution should be waived under § 46-18-246	Court affirmed — no abuse of discretion; district court credibility findings supported denial

State v. Ferre, 374 Mont. 428, 322 P.3d 1047 (standard for abuse of discretion review in criminal post-trial motions)
State v. Derbyshire, 349 Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Sheehan, 329 Mont. 417, 124 P.3d 1119 (burden on party seeking reversal for abuse of discretion)
Ditton v. DOJ, Motor Vehicle Div., 374 Mont. 122, 319 P.3d 1268 (trial court best positioned to assess witness credibility)
Seyferth v. DOJ, Motor Vehicle Div., 277 Mont. 377, 922 P.2d 494 (appellate court will not substitute credibility determinations for trial court)
State v. Azure, 308 Mont. 201, 41 P.3d 899 (appellate courts will not consider evidence not in the record)
Neil Consultants, Inc. v. Lindeman, 331 Mont. 514, 134 P.3d 43 (pro se litigants afforded limited latitude but must follow procedure)
First Bank (N.A.)-Billings v. Heidema, 219 Mont. 373, 711 P.2d 1384 (procedural expectations for pro se litigants)
State v. Clary, 364 Mont. 53, 270 P.3d 88 (issues not raised below are generally not considered on appeal)
Day v. Payne, 280 Mont. 273, 929 P.2d 864 (appellate review limits when issues were not presented to trial court)