“Scrupulous & Meticulous”: The Montana Supreme Court’s Re-affirmation of Ability-to-Pay Findings and Accurate Credit for Time Served in State v. M. Sullivan

1. Introduction

The appeal in State v. Michael Paul Sullivan (2025 MT 172N) required the Supreme Court of Montana to revisit two evergreen sentencing topics:

How and when a defendant must be credited for time already spent in confinement; and
What factual inquiry a district court must conduct before imposing fines, fees, and surcharges on an indigent or low-income offender.

Michael Sullivan, convicted of felony Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (“SIWOC”) in Park County pursuant to a global plea agreement, challenged (i) the district court’s award of only one day of presentence credit despite multiple periods of pre-trial incarceration and (ii) the imposition of $480 in financial penalties without a searching inquiry into his ability to pay.

Though issued as a non-citable memorandum opinion, the Court’s analysis provides a concise tutorial on applying sections 46-18-403, 46-18-201, and 46-18-232 of the Montana Code Annotated (“MCA”) together with recent precedent such as Risher, Dowd, and Reynolds.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Credit for Time Served: The Supreme Court held that Sullivan was entitled to seven days—not one—of credit. Days spent in another county’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”) hold on different charges and days released on his own recognizance are not creditable.
Financial Penalties: The Court reversed the $400 fine and $80 statutory surcharges because the district court failed to conduct the “scrupulous and meticulous” ability-to-pay inquiry mandated by § 46-18-232, MCA and its case-law gloss. On remand, the district court must develop explicit factual findings and then recalculate any fines, fees, and related surcharges.
Disposition: Judgment vacated in part and remanded for (i) entry of a corrected sentence awarding seven days’ credit and (ii) fresh ability-to-pay findings before re-imposing (or waiving) financial assessments.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents & Authorities Cited

State v. Risher, 2024 MT 309 – Established that credit accrues once the sentencing court gains jurisdiction and the defendant is confined “subject to that jurisdiction.”
State v. Killam, 2021 MT 196 – Clarified that credit is limited to the offense for which the sentence is being pronounced; time served on unrelated DOC holds is excluded.
State v. Parks, 2019 MT 252 & State v. Gulbranson, 2003 MT 139 – Held that defendants on bond or on their own recognizance receive no credit because liberty is not restrained.
State v. Dowd, 2023 MT 170; State v. Gable, 2015 MT 200; State v. Reynolds, 2017 MT 317; State v. Moore, 2012 MT 95 – Together form the modern “ability-to-pay” trilogy, indicating that sentencing courts must examine PSIs, question counsel, and articulate findings.

The Sullivan Court used these authorities not to forge new doctrine but to illustrate faithful application of existing rules.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Credit for Time Served

The Court performed a straightforward statutory analysis under §§ 46-18-403 and 46-18-201, MCA:

Step 1 – Identify Jurisdictional Custody: Park County’s jurisdiction attached only during periods when that county itself restrained Sullivan’s liberty (arrest in February and April 2022, and two nights in jail).
Step 2 – Exclude Liberty Periods: Days spent on bond and on personal recognizance offered Sullivan freedom of movement; no credit is available.
Step 3 – Exclude Foreign Holds: The DOC hold deriving from the Lewis & Clark County sentence was unrelated to Park County’s charge; such days cannot be “double-counted.”

3.2.2 Ability-to-Pay

Section 46-18-232(2), MCA, commands that a court “shall take into account” three factors before levying costs. Building on Dowd and Moore, the Court reminded trial judges that:

An inquiry is sufficient only if it is “scrupulous and meticulous,” meaning the judge must actively probe the defendant’s resources, liabilities, disability status, and prospective earning capacity on the record.

The Sullivan sentencing judge merely noted that the defendant would have “a very long time to pay,” an observation deemed inadequate because it conflates time to pay with capacity to pay.

3.3 Practical Impact

Even though designated “non-citable,” the opinion still carries practical weight in Montana:

Operational Guidance for District Courts: Judges and clerks can treat Sullivan as a roadmap on how to draft credit-for-time-served sections in judgments and what “ability-to-pay” colloquies must look like.
Defense Strategy: Counsel should assemble documentary proof (booking logs, bond receipts, SSI/SSDI statements) before sentencing, anticipating that bare oral representations may be discounted or overlooked.
Fiscal Policy: The Court’s insistence on individualized findings may reduce the routine assessment of small fines on indigent defendants, curbing uncollectible criminal-justice debt.
Appellate Preservation: Sullivan shows that issues not squarely raised below (e.g., Gallatin jail time) can still be corrected when the record unambiguously supports the claim or when the State concedes error.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Memorandum Opinion: An unpublished, non-precedential decision resolved under the Court’s Internal Operating Rules; useful for guidance but cannot be cited as binding authority.
DOC Hold: A temporary placement in state custody (often in a county jail) ordered by the Department of Corrections, usually while awaiting transport or classification on another sentence.
Own Recognizance Release (OR): Conditional release without posting bond; the defendant promises to appear but is otherwise free—therefore not “incarcerated” for credit purposes.
Ability-to-Pay Inquiry: A fact-finding obligation requiring the sentencing court to evaluate income, assets, debts, disabilities, and foreseeable earning prospects prior to imposing monetary sanctions.
Presentence Investigation (PSI): A report prepared by probation officers detailing the defendant’s background, finances, criminal history, and victim impact; often the primary evidentiary source for sentencing decisions.

5. Conclusion

Key Takeaways:

Credit for time served attaches only when (a) the sentencing county has jurisdiction and (b) the defendant’s liberty is physically restrained on that county’s charge; other holds or recognizance periods are excluded.
Before ordering any monetary penalty, Montana trial courts must make explicit on-the-record findings regarding the offender’s present and future ability to pay, informed by a PSI, counsel’s input, and direct questioning.
Failure to follow these statutory and jurisprudential mandates will result in partial reversal and remand—even in memorandum opinions.

The Sullivan decision is a reminder that sentencing, though sometimes routine, is fundamentally a juridical measurement of both liberty and economic burdens. Precision—in days and in dollars—is not optional; it is a constitutional and statutory imperative.