Opinion ID: 889628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Restitution for Future Counseling

Text: ¶ 15 The District Court also imposed restitution for the victim's future counseling at the sentencing hearing. In the written sentence, it ordered Johnson to pay such out of pocket expenses she actually incurs for counseling and/or therapy during the ten (10) year period of the Defendant's sentence. However, under § 46-18-244(1), MCA (1999), the sentencing court must specify the amount, method, and time of each payment to the victim and may permit payment in installments. ¶ 16 The State concedes that the District Court's imposition of restitution for future counseling did not comply with this statute. Johnson asks that we strike the restitution condition altogether, but we agree with the State that the appropriate remedy is to vacate this condition and remand to the District Court to correct it in compliance with § 46-18-244, MCA (1999). State v. Guill, 2011 MT 32, ¶¶ 52-53, 359 Mont. 225, 248 P.3d 826; State v. Heafner, 2010 MT 87, ¶ 11, 356 Mont. 128, 231 P.3d 1087.