State v. Matthew Curtis Sills, 2018AP001053-CR

Background

Matthew C. Sills was charged and, pursuant to plea agreements, pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault of a child (max 40 years imprisonment). The plea paperwork and the court colloquy did not inform him of the possible $100,000 maximum fine.
Sills exhibited learning disabilities and mental-health issues; a competency evaluation found him competent but noted limited ability to read and understand complex documents.
After pleading guilty, Sills filed pro se and counsel-filed motions to withdraw his plea, alleging he did not understand the plea consequences and that counsel had not explained critical aspects (including the fine).
At an evidentiary Bangert hearing original counsel conceded the plea form did not list the maximum fine and did not recall discussing it with Sills; Sills testified he did not know about any $100,000 fine.
The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, concluding the plea was voluntary and that Sills understood the penalties; the court later sentenced Sills to 9 years initial confinement and 6 years extended supervision.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held the plea colloquy was deficient (Bangert violation) because the court failed to advise Sills of the possible fine and the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Sills nevertheless knew of it. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions to allow plea withdrawal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sills)	Held
Whether the plea colloquy complied with Bangert by advising of the full range of punishment (including fines)	The trial court adequately advised Sills and any deficiency does not warrant withdrawal; this is a pre‑sentencing fair-and-just inquiry	Sills lacked notice of the possible $100,000 fine; omission from colloquy and plea form meant his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary	Court: Bangert applies; omission of fine was a Bangert violation and Sills made a prima facie showing he did not know about the fine
Whether the State met its burden to prove Sills knew about the fine despite the deficient colloquy	State offered no evidence at the Bangert hearing showing Sills knew of the fine	Sills testified he did not know about the fine; original counsel could not recall explaining it; form omitted the fine	Court: State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Sills knew of the fine; entry of plea was not knowing/voluntary
Whether the proper standard is Bangert (constitutional/mandatory duties) or Jenkins (fair-and-just pre-sentencing)	State urged application of fair-and-just Jenkins standard and requested a retrospective hearing on prejudice	Sills asserted a Bangert violation invoking an absolute right to withdraw where constitutional/mandatory duties were breached	Court: Bangert governs; when Bangert violation proven, withdrawal is a matter of right—fair-and-just prejudice is irrelevant
Remedy: whether trial court had discretion to deny withdrawal	Trial court exercised discretion and denied withdrawal after hearing	Sills argued withdrawal is mandatory because the plea was not knowingly entered due to Bangert violation	Court: No discretion; trial court erred as matter of law and must permit withdrawal of plea

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 (1986) (sets out trial-court duties at plea colloquy and burden-shifting when duties are breached)
State v. Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594 (2006) (reexamines Bangert, confirms requirement to ensure plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Finley, 370 Wis. 2d 402 (2016) (explains outcome when State cannot show by clear and convincing evidence defendant knew omitted plea information)
State v. Van Camp, 213 Wis. 2d 131 (1997) (discusses when plea withdrawal is required for lack of complete understanding of charge)
State v. Ramel, 306 Wis. 2d 654 (2007) (recognizes fines as part of range of punishments a court must disclose)