Opinion ID: 1253046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 21. The issue presented in this case requires us to review a probation revocation by the DOC. Our review is therefore limited to determining: (1) whether the Department acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction; (2) whether it acted according to law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and represented its will, not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was sufficient that the Department might reasonably make the determination that it did. State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis. 2d 615, 628-29, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998). [1] ¶ 22. Kaminski's revocation was based on findings that he violated two rules of probation. He does not challenge these findingshe admits both violations. He instead claims that the DOC did not act according to law in imposing one of these rules of probation, and that the rule was unreasonable. Whether a condition or rule of probation is contrary to law is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Id. at 629. ¶ 23. Whether a condition or rule of probation is unreasonable is dependent on whether the condition or rule serves the dual goals of probation: rehabilitation and protection of the community. State v. Heyn, 155 Wis. 2d 621, 629, 456 N.W.2d 157 (1990).