State v. Simpson, 328 P.3d 1144

Michael Simpson pleaded guilty to one count of theft by common scheme; several related charges were dismissed under a plea agreement but he agreed to pay restitution for dismissed charges.
District Court ordered a PSI; PSI and victim Robert Appley sought restitution totaling roughly $30,460 for vehicle parts, scrap metal, radiators, road damage, and other items; two other victims (Johnson and Coder) sought $500 and $360 respectively for dismissed charges.
At sentencing Simpson generally contested the amount of restitution but did not specifically object to the lack of affidavits or testimony for Johnson and Coder.
District Court entered a restitution order for $31,878.78 covering Appley, Johnson, and Coder; Simpson appealed.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether Simpson preserved objections to restitution for Johnson and Coder and whether the restitution amounts for various Appley items were supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Simpson preserved objection to restitution for Johnson and Coder based on lack of affidavits/testimony	State: Simpson failed to object at sentencing; issue forfeited	Simpson: PSI lacked victim affidavits and victims did not testify, violating §46-18-242(1)(b)	Forfeited — Simpson waived the claim by not objecting at sentencing; restitution to Johnson and Coder affirmed
Whether evidence supports award for scrap metal weight	State: Appley’s testimony and affidavit support 14 tons	Simpson: receipts show only ~7 tons; receipts are more reliable	Affirmed — court credited Appley’s testimony; not clearly erroneous
Whether restitution for radiators, miscellaneous parts, and road repairs supported	State: Appley’s testimony, invoices, and contractor estimate suffice	Simpson: estimates speculative; some items overstated	Affirmed — reasonable estimates and supporting testimony suffice; court acted within discretion
Whether restitution for two aluminum boats and 1951 GMC truck was proper	State: Appley’s claims cover items taken from his property	Simpson: boats not charged; truck valuation unsupported/conflicting	Boats: reversed (no charge/admission). Truck: reversed and remanded for factual findings on proper valuation

State v. Benoit, 51 P.3d 495 (Mont. 2002) (restitution may be based on reasonable methods and best available evidence)
State v. Aragon, 321 P.3d 841 (Mont. 2014) (restitution may rely on victim testimony but courts should not choose a higher estimate when conflicting estimates lack context)
State v. Coluccio, 214 P.3d 1282 (Mont. 2009) (restitution fact findings reviewed for clear error)
State v. Jent, 299 P.3d 332 (Mont. 2013) (definition of substantial evidence; causal relationship standard for restitution)
State v. David C. Johnson, 254 P.3d 578 (Mont. 2011) (failure to object at sentencing forfeits appellate challenge to PSI/affidavit deficiencies)
State v. Breeding, 184 P.3d 313 (Mont. 2008) (offenders liable only for offenses they have admitted or been convicted of)