State v. Huff, 336 P.3d 897

Wendy Huff, hired as motel manager, transferred $19,745.10 from the employer's corporate account to her personal account and other funds/supplies were missing; she pled no contest to felony theft and a misdemeanor worthless check.
Plea agreement: in the felony case restitution would be determined at a post-sentencing hearing; in the misdemeanor case she agreed to $80 restitution (not contested on appeal).
District court sentenced Huff to probation and later ordered $105,000 in restitution after briefing on whether Apprendi required a jury to decide causation/amount.
Huff argued under Apprendi v. New Jersey that any fact increasing the penalty beyond the statutory maximum (here, restitution-causing facts) must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State argued Huff’s plea barred the challenge and, principally, that Apprendi does not apply to restitution because restitution has no prescribed statutory maximum.
The Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Apprendi inapplicable to restitution and rejecting the plea-waiver defense as to the felony restitution hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Huff)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Apprendi requires a jury finding that the defendant's conduct caused the victim's loss before imposing restitution	Apprendi requires jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt for any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum; causal-fact finding increases Huff's maximum and thus requires a jury	Apprendi is inapplicable because restitution is not subject to a prescribed statutory maximum and courts have uniformly held judicial fact-finding for restitution does not trigger Apprendi	Court held Apprendi inapplicable: restitution is not a penalty that increases the statutory maximum (and even if punitive, it does not exceed statutory maximum), so judicial findings to impose restitution do not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Whether Huff’s plea agreement waived her right to challenge restitution imposed later	Huff did not agree to restitution in the felony plea; only agreed restitution would be determined later; therefore she may challenge it	State argued plea agreement precluded the challenge	Court held plea language ambiguous as to felony restitution and construed strictly against State; Huff not barred from challenging restitution (though she did not contest amount).

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (U.S. 2012) (trial court may not make judicial findings that increase a punitive fine beyond the statutory maximum set by jury findings)
United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012) (Apprendi does not apply to restitution because no prescribed statutory maximum governs restitution amounts)
United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2004) (Apprendi inapplicable to restitution orders not exceeding damaged property value)
State v. Applegate, 266 Kan. 1072 (Kan. 1999) (restitution as condition of probation is rehabilitative/recoupment and measured by victim's actual loss)
State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578 (Kan. 2004) (court must find causal link between defendant's conduct and victim's loss before awarding restitution)