MICHAEL R. LUFBOROUGH,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Custer, Cause No. DC 08-13
Honorable Gary L. Day, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Michael Ray Lufborough, self-represented, Shelby, Montana
For Appellee:
Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Wyatt Glade, Custer County Attorney, Miles City, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 30, 2012
Decided: June 12, 2012
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve
as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Appellant Michael Ray Lufborough (Lufborough) appealed the District Court’s order
denying his petition to relieve himself of various fines and monetary obligations imposed by
the District Court as part of his sentence in a criminal case.
¶3 Lufborough was convicted of two counts of criminal endangerment, both
misdemeanors, in Custer County Cause No. DC-08-13. The court required Lufborough to
pay a fine of $500 as well as a surcharge in the amount of $155. Lufborough later was
convicted of criminal endangerment, a felony, in Custer County Cause No. DC-09-16. The
District Court’s sentence ordered Lufborough to pay a fine of $500 as well as a surcharge in
the amount of $80. Lufborough did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
¶4 Lufborough later filed a petition in the District Court for “remission” of what he
alleged were “costs.” Lufborough requested remission of $650 from Cause No. DC-08-13,
and he requested the remission of the entire $580 in Cause No. DC-09-16. The District
Court denied Lufborough’s petition. Lufborough timely appeals.
¶5 Lufborough proceeds pro se on appeal. He argues that the District Court failed to
consider the manifest hardship on him to pay a fine and surcharge. He cites the fact that he
earns a prison wage of sixty-three cents per day and that he must pay for his own personal
items at the prison. The State countered that Lufborough knew the consequences of his
2
guilty plea and the potential sentence associated with it.
¶6 We review a district court’s denial of a post-trial motion for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Griffin,
. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us the District Court
imposed sentences on Lufborough, including fines and surcharges, that fell within the
statutory parameters for the offenses of which he was convicted. It is further evident that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in upholding these legal sentences when it denied
Lufborough’s post-trial motion.
¶7 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ BETH BAKER
3
