E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state

Summary

The court held that a plea-agreement provision capping restitution without the victim’s consent violates the victim’s statutory and constitutional right to full restitution, and that due process does not require a defendant to receive a specific restitution amount or cap before pleading guilty. The court also held that the new rule applies prospectively because it is a new procedural rule and neither recognized retroactivity framework permits applying it to final cases. Finally, the court held that a victim’s attorney presumptively may sit in the courtroom well during proceedings directly involving the victim’s rights. No separate opinions were filed.