January 31 2008
DA 06-0497
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2008 MT 26
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
HOMER HOLLAND,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC 05-183
Honorable James A. Haynes, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Martin W. Judnich, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jonathan M. Krauss, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
George Corn, Ravalli County Attorney; T. Geoff Mahar, Deputy County
Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 11, 2007
Decided: January 31, 2008
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Homer Holland appeals from a judgment entered in the Twenty-First Judicial District,
Ravalli County, deferring imposition of sentence for three years on the condition, inter alia,
that he repay the amount of $2,922 as costs and related fees expended in his defense by his
court-appointed counsel.
¶2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred by requiring Holland to
pay the costs of an investigator and related expenses, approved by the District Court and
expended by his court-appointed counsel.
¶3 On October 31, 2005, the State charged Holland with two counts of felony criminal
endangerment, in violation of § 45-5-207, MCA, and one count of driving under the
influence of alcohol, in violation of § 61-8-401, MCA. Holland was indigent and the District
Court appointed counsel to defend him at the expense of the State of Montana. His
appointed counsel moved the District Court for its approval to expend State funds to
investigate the case and to retain an expert witness. The District Court granted the motion
and approved up to $3,000 in defense expenditures. Defense counsel ultimately spent $2,922
on investigative and related expenses.
¶4 Ultimately, Holland pled no contest to the criminal endangerment charges and guilty
to driving under the influence of alcohol. On April 27, 2006, the District Court sentenced
Holland, deferring the imposition of sentence for three years. As a condition of the deferred
sentence, the judge required Holland to repay the $2,922 expended by defense counsel,
2
pursuant to § 46-18-201, MCA, and § 46-8-113, MCA (2003).1 Holland does not contest the
finding of the District Court that he is able to pay. He appeals the requirement that he repay
defense costs, asserting that the statutes do not authorize the District Court to impose such a
condition on his deferred sentence.
¶5 We review a sentence for legality, examining only whether it is within the statutory
parameters. State v. Hirt, 2005 MT 285, ¶ 11, 329 Mont. 267, ¶ 11, 124 P.3d 147, ¶ 11.
¶6 Section 46-18-201(3)(b), MCA, permits a sentencing judge to impose a sentence that
includes “payment of costs as provided in 46-18-232 or payment of costs of court-appointed
counsel as provided in 46-8-113.”
¶7 Section 46-18-232, MCA, is not involved in this appeal as it only concerns costs of
prosecution that a defendant may be ordered to pay. Section 46-8-113, MCA, provides in
pertinent part: “[t]he court may require a convicted defendant to pay the costs of court-
appointed counsel as a part of or a condition under the sentence imposed as provided in [this
title].” Section 46-8-113(1), MCA.
¶8 We have held that § 46-8-113(1) includes all costs related to a criminal defense. State
v. Hubbel, 2001 MT 31, ¶ 33, 304 Mont. 184, ¶ 33, 20 P.3d 111, ¶ 33, overruled on other
grounds, State v. Hendricks, 2003 MT 223, ¶ 11, 317 Mont. 177, ¶ 11, 75 P.3d 1268, ¶ 11.
As we noted in Hubbel, the statute contains no limitation on which defense costs a judge
may require a defendant to pay. Hubbel, ¶ 33. The District Court had the statutory authority
1
In 2005, the legislature amended § 46-8-113, MCA, but delayed the effective date until
July 1, 2006. Because Holland committed the offense and was sentenced before this
date, the amendment does not apply to him.
3
to condition Holland’s deferred sentence on his repayment of approved costs the State
incurred in his defense.
¶9 The District Court did not err when it required Holland to repay $2,922 as a condition
of his deferred sentence.
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ JOHN WARNER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JIM RICE
4