Background
Robert Anthony Taylor pleaded no contest to felony theft and criminal mischief after he and a co-defendant damaged a dog-wash machine at Get ’er Clean Car Wash in Glendive, Montana. Taylor’s plea agreement required him to pay restitution to the business, jointly and severally with his co-defendant. The theft charge involved a stolen pickup and was not at issue on appeal.
At a joint restitution hearing, the business owner testified that attempts to repair the machine had failed, the manufacturer could not supply all necessary parts, and the damaged model was no longer produced. A comparable new machine cost $21,050. The District Court orally imposed restitution in that amount, although its written judgment stated $20,050. Taylor argued that restitution should reflect the damaged machine’s actual market value rather than the cost of a new replacement.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the restitution judgment. Relying on its decision arising from the co-defendant’s appeal, which involved the same hearing, record, and issues, the Court held that the owner’s testimony and affidavit supplied substantial evidence supporting replacement-cost restitution and that the District Court committed no legal error.
The Court declined the State’s request to remand for correction of the written judgment from $20,050 to the orally pronounced $21,050. Because the State did not seek modification within the 120-day period required by Montana law, it failed to preserve the issue and waived the requested correction. The decision was issued as a noncitable memorandum opinion and does not serve as precedent.
Key Takeaways
- Owner testimony that repairs were unsuccessful, necessary parts were unavailable, and a comparable replacement cost $21,050 provided substantial evidence for replacement-cost restitution.
- The Court affirmed the written judgment imposing $20,050 in joint-and-several restitution despite the District Court’s oral pronouncement of $21,050.
- The State waived correction of the written judgment by failing to request modification within the statutory 120-day period.
Why It Matters
The ruling leaves Taylor responsible, jointly and severally with his co-defendant, for restitution based on the cost of a new comparable machine rather than the depreciated market value of the damaged equipment. Two dissenting justices maintained that restitution should be limited to damages recoverable in a civil action and that the new-machine award was unsupported.
Because the Court designated the ruling a memorandum opinion under its internal rules, the decision resolves Taylor’s appeal but may not be cited and does not establish precedent.