State v. Thomas Daniel Bros., 307 P.3d 306

Brothers was charged with sexual assault, incest, and indecent exposure; he pled guilty to one count of sexual assault as part of a plea agreement recommending 15 years with 10 suspended.
Brothers was extradited from New Mexico to Montana; at sentencing the State requested $1,069.02 restitution for extradition costs but offered no affidavit or live testimony substantiating the amount.
The District Court initially imposed a harsher sentence (20 years, 10 suspended); Brothers withdrew his plea and the parties stipulated to re-sentencing under the original plea terms.
At re-sentencing the Court again ordered $1,069.02 restitution to the State for extradition costs, despite lack of evidentiary support and statutory procedural requirements.
Brothers appealed the restitution award arguing the Court lacked authority to impose it; the Supreme Court reviewed whether the State qualifies as a "victim" under Montana’s restitution statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court could order restitution to the State for extradition costs	State sought restitution to recoup extradition costs incurred	Brothers argued restitution was improper because State is not a "victim" under statute and no affidavit/testimony supported amount	Court held State is not a "victim" under §46-18-243(2)(a) for these costs; restitution vacated

State v. Jay, 369 Mont. 332, 298 P.3d 396 (construed "victim" to include governmental entity only when it suffers property damage from a crime or incurs costs in investigation/apprehension of an escapee)
State v. Jent, 369 Mont. 468, 299 P.3d 332 (discussed restitution statutory framework and mixed question of law and fact)
State v. Johnson, 360 Mont. 443, 254 P.3d 578 (review standards for sentencing authority and statutory compliance)