State v. Matthew Curtis Sills, 2022AP001390-CR

Matthew Curtis Sills was convicted by a jury of first-degree child sexual assault—sexual intercourse with a child under 13, based on his daughter Elizabeth's allegations of abuse occurring when she was around seven years old.
Sills initially pleaded guilty to an amended charge but later succeeded on appeal in withdrawing his plea due to a Bangert violation (court did not inform of all potential penalties during the plea colloquy).
On retrial, the State sought to introduce prior unsubstantiated abuse allegations (the "Tomah allegations") and evidence of Sills’s search history; the trial court mostly excluded the former but noted context might allow some evidence if the defendant "opened the door."
During trial, evidence included Elizabeth's testimony, a forensic interview, and an incriminating jail phone call where Sills appeared to admit inappropriate contact and blamed his daughter.
After conviction, the court imposed a harsher sentence than on the original plea, citing the gravity of the offense, the impact on the victim, and Sills’s refusal to accept responsibility.
Sills moved for postconviction relief, arguing judicial bias (based on the trial judge’s openly negative comments about the appellate remand) and ineffective assistance of counsel; both were denied without a hearing, and Sills appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial Bias	Judge’s repeated negative comments on remand showed objective and actual bias	No bias; judge kept comments from jury and stated they did not affect sentencing	No judicial bias found; judge’s conduct did not violate fair trial rights
Sentencing Bias/Improper Factors	Sentence improperly based on judge’s frustration with appeals process	Sentence based on proper statutory factors: offense gravity, protection, rehabilitation	No improper sentencing; sentence grounded in appropriate factors and within limits
Admission of Tomah Allegations	Counsel failed to keep out prejudicial prior allegations	Any reference was due to Sills’ own testimony; court handled evidence cautiously	No prejudice; Sills opened the door, so no ineffective counsel on this basis
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	Counsel was deficient re: Tomah allegations and recusal motion	No deficiency or prejudice; recusal motion speculative, evidence not outcome-changing	No ineffective assistance; claims conclusory and did not show prejudice or deficiency

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (establishes the due process right to an impartial judge and the standard for judicial bias)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets forth the test for ineffective assistance of counsel—deficiency and prejudice)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (expressions of dissatisfaction or irritation by a judge do not necessarily establish judicial bias)
Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179 (1975) (a sentence must not be so disproportionate as to shock public sentiment)