00-3075 In Re the Commitment of VanBronkhorst: State v. VanBronkhorst

Listen to this article

“The State contends that VanBronk-horst was given notice of the Rule 15 violation when the circuit court quoted the rule’s language when questioning VanBronkhorst. While the court did in fact recite language from Rule 15, VanBronkhorst was not charged with a Rule 15 violation. He was not accused of having a relationship with an adult who has a minor child. VanBronkhorst was only charged with violating Rules 1, 17, 36, and 37. The petition was not amended before or during the hearing nor was VanBronkhorst in any other way notified that the court’s questions could lead to a new basis for the revocation. Therefore, we conclude VanBronkhorst did not have notice.”

Finally, where the circuit court did not rule whether the violation of Rule 37 warranted revocation of defendant’s supervised release, we remand with directions to determine whether VanBronk-horst’s violation of Rule 37 was itself sufficient to revoke supervised release.

Reversed and remanded with directions

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Douglas County, Lucci, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jack E. Schairer, Madison

For Respondent: Marguerite M. Moeller, Madison; Daniel W. Blank, Superior