Background
Trey Miller was charged with felony theft and felony false claims to public agencies based on allegations that he misrepresented his income and received $13,938 in overpaid pandemic unemployment assistance benefits. The Montana Department of Labor and Industry Unemployment Insurance Division investigated and calculated $13,938 in overpayments and $6,969 in penalties.
Miller pleaded guilty to both charges under an agreement providing that he would pay restitution in an amount to be determined at sentencing, with the State anticipating $13,938. Although the presentence investigation report included UID’s signed but unsworn investigation report, Miller objected because the State presented neither a sworn victim affidavit nor testimony establishing the loss. The District Court nevertheless imposed $13,938 in restitution along with two consecutive five-year deferred sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court reversed the restitution portion of Miller’s sentence. Montana law requires a victim’s pecuniary loss to be established under oath, either through an affidavit or through testimony at sentencing. An unsworn investigation report or other loss documentation does not satisfy that requirement, even when included in a presentence investigation report.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the plea agreement, guilty pleas, investigation materials, and Miller’s alleged acknowledgment of the overpayments supplied adequate support. Miller agreed only to restitution in an amount to be determined at sentencing, not to the anticipated $13,938 figure. The Court remanded for a new restitution hearing at which UID’s loss must be established through evidence complying with the governing statute.
Key Takeaways
- A restitution award must be supported by the victim’s sworn affidavit or testimony establishing pecuniary loss.
- Unsworn reports and financial records cannot alone support restitution, even when attached to a presentence investigation report.
- A plea agreement identifying an anticipated restitution amount is not an agreement to that amount when the agreement leaves restitution for determination at sentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the evidentiary safeguards governing restitution in Montana criminal cases. Prosecutors must present sworn proof of a victim’s loss rather than rely solely on investigative materials, presentence reports, or a defendant’s general agreement to pay restitution.
The Court issued the ruling as a noncitable memorandum opinion that does not serve as precedent, but its disposition applies settled Montana restitution law to the evidentiary record in Miller’s case.