Background
Dustin Thomas Barker pleaded guilty in February 2024 to a fourth or subsequent DUI offense. The District Court sentenced him to 13 months in Department of Corrections custody, with a recommendation for treatment through the WATCh program, followed by a three-year suspended sentence at Montana State Prison.
Barker asked the court to waive all fines, fees, and surcharges, explaining that he faced possible extradition to Idaho for a felony probation violation and potentially a ten-year sentence there. Although the court recognized that Barker would have little or no earning capacity while incarcerated, it found that his welding skills would enable him to pay after his release. It imposed a $5,000 mandatory minimum fine along with multiple surcharges, fees, and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court reversed the $5,000 fine and the other fees and costs, remanding for further consideration of Barker’s ability to pay. Applying State v. Cole, the Court explained that a sentencing court must impose the statutorily required mandatory fine, assess the defendant’s ability to pay under § 46-18-231(3), MCA, and suspend the fine to the extent the defendant cannot pay it.
The Court concluded that the District Court’s inquiry was insufficient given the uncertainty surrounding Barker’s future employability and possible Idaho incarceration. On remand, the District Court may consider updated information about Barker’s circumstances and financial obligations. Three justices specially concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the remand but maintaining that no fine—suspended or otherwise—should be imposed if Barker cannot pay.
Key Takeaways
- Montana sentencing courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay even when a statute prescribes a mandatory minimum fine.
- Under Cole, a court must impose the mandatory fine and then suspend any portion the defendant lacks the ability to pay.
- A finding based principally on occupational skills may be inadequate when lengthy incarceration and future employment prospects remain uncertain.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the required post-Cole procedure for financial penalties and shows that courts must conduct a meaningful, circumstance-specific ability-to-pay assessment. Potential incarceration in another jurisdiction, current obligations, and realistic employment prospects may bear on that analysis.
The Court issued the decision as a noncitable memorandum opinion that does not serve as precedent, but its disposition illustrates how Cole applies when a sentencing record does not adequately address the defendant’s future capacity to pay.