State v. Kenvin, 38 A.3d 26

Defendant Kenvin was convicted of negligent operation of a motor vehicle resulting in death after a 2008 accident.
The district court ordered restitution to the decedent’s wife and to the Victims’ Compensation Fund for items including travel, storage, and a medical bill.
Defendant appealed challenging the restitution amounts, causation to the crime, and lack of ability-to-pay findings.
The court sentenced defendant to eleven to twelve months and argued the sentence violated indeterminate-sentencing law due to a gap of 30 days; later addressed by legislative amendment.
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the restitution orders and remanded for proper findings, and affirmed the amended-scope interpretation of the maximum/minimum terms for a non-fixed sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restitution amounts were properly established	Kenvin	Kenvin	Restitution needs proper evidence of material loss and direct link to the crime
Whether the family travel and storage costs were direct results of the crime	State	Kenvin	Costs to travel and store property are not direct losses of the decedent; only medical bill potentially qualifies
Whether the decedent's family members qualify as victims for restitution when the conviction is for a lesser-included offense	State	Kenvin	Family members are not victims under 13 V.S.A. § 7043 for this conviction
Whether the court failed to make findings on defendant's ability to pay	State	Kenvin	Remand required for explicit ability-to-pay findings
Whether the sentence is impermissibly fixed under indeterminate sentencing law after legislative amendment	State	Kenvin	Amendment to 13 V.S.A. § 7031(a) applies and defeats fixed-term claim; sentence affirmed

State v. VanDusen, 166 Vt. 240 (1997) (restitution within trial court’s discretion)
State v. Bohannon, 2010 VT 22 (2010) (causation and proper restitution framework)
State v. Forant, 168 Vt. 217 (1998) (direct link between crime and loss required for restitution)
State v. Rollins, 2007 VT 127 (2007) (restitution must be tied to conduct for which defendant was convicted)
State v. LaFlam, 2008 VT 108 (2008) (rehabilitation of direct link requirement for restitution under §7043)
State v. LaBounty, 179 Vt. 199 (2005) (driving offense; injury link to crime necessary for restitution)
State v. Delaoz, 2010 VT 65 (2010) (indeterminate sentencing limits and parole considerations)
State v. Sausville, 151 Vt. 120 (1989) (need findings on ability to pay restitution)
State v. Curtis, 140 Vt. 621 (1982) (analysis of ability-to-pay findings in restitution)
State v. Benoit, 131 Vt. 631 (1973) (restitution findings requirement)
State v. Knapp, 147 Vt. 56 (1986) (link between conviction and damages for restitution)