State v. Thomas, 14 A.3d 961

Defendant Thomas pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for punching the victim and causing hospitalization, in an incident arising from April 2007 at a party.
The charged conduct included an attempted act of serious bodily injury; the victim was hospitalized at DHMC following the assault.
In June 2008, Thomas admitted probation violation and pled guilty to aggravated assault; the plea agreement did not mention restitution.
A restitution hearing occurred on August 4, 2009; the State sought $10,000 to the Victims' Compensation Fund and $8,673 to DHMC; Thomas disputed restitution on several grounds.
The court ordered $10,000 to the Victims' Compensation Program and $8,673 to DHMC; the DHMC award was later found to be improper as a direct victim.
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed restitution to the Victims' Compensation Fund, struck the DHMC restitution, and remanded for a proper restitution order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be based on an attempted crime	State contends causation supports restitution for injury.	Thomas argues restitution cannot attach if only an attempt is proven.	Restitution allowed; injuries tied to the charged conduct.
Whether plain error occurred for not informing withdrawal rights under Rule 11 when restitution was sought and not in the plea	State contends no error since plea was not breached and restitution did not modify the plea.	Thomas argues failure to inform withdrawal rights is plain error.	No plain error; plea standing and restitution consideration did not reject the plea.
Whether the hospital DHMC could be a direct victim entitled to restitution	State seeks restitution to DHMC as a direct victim.	Thomas contends DHMC is not a direct victim.	DHMC is not a direct victim; DHMC restitution is struck and remanded for payment to the actual victim.
Whether the Victims' Compensation Fund restitution was proper	State properly sought restitution to fund as authorized by statute.	Thomas argued against restitution not included in plea.	Restitution to the Victims' Compensation Fund affirmed.

State v. Rollins, 182 Vt. 644 (2007 VT) (restitution permissible in attempt crimes; requires causation)
State v. Forant, 168 Vt. 217 (1998 VT) (restitution must relate to damage caused by the defendant's criminal act)
State v. VanDusen, 166 Vt. 240 (1997 VT) (victim damages may be compensable even when tied to underlying conduct)
Bergerson, 144 Vt. 200 (1984 VT) (plain error doctrine applicable where plea agreement rejected after sentencing)
State v. Bohannon, 2010 VT 22 (2010 VT) (restitution is aimed at victim compensation, not punishment)