Cases | State v. VanDusen, 691 A.2d 1053 | 2018
The defendant was convicted of misdemeanor possession of stolen property, an offense involving property not exceeding $500 in value. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay $4,000 in restitution. On appeal, the defendant claimed that: (1) the trial court lacked authority to order restitution exceeding the charge to which he pled guilty; and (2) restitution was not supported by evidence. The court held that: (1) the trial court could award restitution beyond the amount contained in the misdemeanor charge associated with petit larceny, of which the defendant was convicted. There was no suggestion in Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 7043 that the legislature intended to limit damages based on the dollar amount in the charge against a defendant. The statute was based on the principle of compensation to the victim rather than punishment of the defendant. Further, at sentencing, matters must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. It is not inconsistent that the State could prove the higher value during sentencing but not in the criminal trial; and (2) the restitution order was supported by evidence and was within the court’s discretion. Given the totality of the evidence, the court could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was responsible for the losses.