Court Opinion

ID: 9945586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:19:13.871675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.297538
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                         Filed 02/2 24
                                                                                                           Rutland mt

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                                   $4                          CIVIL DIVISION
Rutland Unit                                                                     Case No. 23-CV-03793
83 Center St
Rutland VT 05701
802-775-4394
WWW.Vermontjudiciary.org

                   Christopher Kosmalski V. Nicholas Deml, Commissioner VT DOC

                                          DECISION ON APPEAL
        Appellant Christopher Kosmalski appeals from the decision of the Department of Corrections
to impose a four-year interruption after his most recent furlough Violation. He argues that the record

fails to support the Department’s determination that this was his third “significant” Violation. Thus, he
asserts that the court should vacate the interruption and impose a two-year interruption, as called for by

the Department’s “Response to Furlough Violations” directive in the case of a second “signiﬁcant

Violation.”
        The record establishes that Mr. Kosmalski violated his furlough most recently in June 2023
when he removed his GPS unit and absconded. It establishes further that he did the same in April 2021.
He concedes that each of these was a “signiﬁcant violation” within the meaning of the “Response to

Furlough Violations” directive. He points out, however, that the record is bereft of any detail on his
ﬁrst violation—beyond the assertion that it resulted in a one-year interruption and the subsequent bald
assertion that it was a “signiﬁcant” violation. As Mr. Kosmalski observes, however, the directive in

effect at the time of that violation did not sort violations as “signiﬁcant” or otherwise. Moreover, it
allowed the imposition of a one-year interruption for a number of violations that would not qualify as

“signiﬁcant” under the current iteration of the directive. Thus, the court cannot properly infer from the
length of the interruption that Mr. Kosmalski’s ﬁrst violation was “signiﬁcant.” In short, the record
fails to support DOC’s ﬁnding in that regard. That failure amounts to an abuse of discretion. Cf Mayer
v. Mayer, 144 Vt. 214, 216—17 (1984) (“A major purpose of ﬁndings is to enable this Court, on appeal,

to determine how the trial court's decision was reached. Therefore, the facts essential to the disposition

of the case must be stated”).
        The remedy, however, is not to assume that the ﬁrst violation was not signiﬁcant. Presumably,
DOC has available to it the record of that violation, so as to conﬁrm the proper characterization of the
violation. Accordingly, the court remands the matter to DOC for another case stafﬁng. Cf Parker v.

Decision 0n Appeal                                                                       Page 1 of 2
23—CV—03793 Christopher Kosmalski v. Nicholas Deml, Commissioner VT DOC
Parker, 2012 VT 20, ¶ 13, 191 Vt. 222 (“If the findings are inadequate, we must remand for additional
findings.”).
                                                  ORDER
        The court vacates the four-year interruption imposed by DOC and remands the matter to DOC
to conduct another case staffing. At that case staffing, DOC must ensure that there is evidence in the
record to support its determination.

Electronically signed pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d): 2/23/2024 1:33 PM

___________________________
Samuel Hoar, Jr.
Superior Court Judge

Decision on Appeal                                                                     Page 2 of 2
23-CV-03793 Christopher Kosmalski v. Nicholas Deml, Commissioner VT DOC