State v. Richard J. Sulla, 880 N.W.2d 659

Richard Sulla pleaded no contest to two counts (Counts 1 and 3) in exchange for dismissal but read-in of two other counts (including an arson) for sentencing and restitution; plea reduced his exposure from ~95.5 to ~39.5 years.
Sulla signed a Plea Questionnaire/Waiver form that stated read-ins may be considered at sentencing, may give rise to restitution, and bar future prosecution of the read-in charges.
At the plea colloquy the court confirmed Sulla understood the agreement and that dismissed counts would be considered at sentencing; the court accepted the pleas as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
At sentencing the court explicitly stated it would consider the read-in arson and imposed a total 20-year sentence; restitution of over $460,000 reflected arson-related losses.
Postconviction, Sulla filed a Nelson/Bentley motion alleging counsel told him the read-in was "not admitting guilt" and merely something the court would "look at," and that he therefore did not understand the effect of the read-in at sentencing.
The postconviction court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing finding (1) the affidavit did not allege deficient counsel because counsel’s description was legally correct, and (2) the record (waiver form, plea colloquy, sentencing remarks, restitution amount, and prior read-ins) conclusively showed Sulla understood the effects of read-ins. The court of appeals reversed; the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a postconviction court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a Nelson/Bentley plea-withdrawal motion alleging misunderstanding about read-in consequences	Sulla: counsel misinformed me that read-in was "not admitting guilt" and only something the court would "look at," so plea was not knowing/voluntary	State: alleged statements were legally accurate; the written waiver, plea colloquy, and sentencing transcript conclusively show Sulla understood read-in consequences	Court: No hearing required; court properly exercised discretion — record conclusively demonstrates Sulla understood read-in effects and was not entitled to relief

Nelson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 489 (Wis. 1972) (establishes that a Nelson/Bentley motion alleging facts that would entitle movant to relief requires a hearing unless the record conclusively shows no relief)
Bentley v. State, 201 Wis.2d 303 (Wis. 1996) (refines Nelson standard and allows denial without hearing if record conclusively refutes the motion)
State v. Allen, 274 Wis.2d 568 (Wis. 2004) (explains the pleading requirement for postconviction motions and when the record conclusively refutes claims)
State v. Howell, 301 Wis.2d 350 (Wis. 2007) (clarifies that a hearing is not mandatory if the record as a whole conclusively demonstrates no entitlement to relief)
State v. Straszkowski, 310 Wis.2d 259 (Wis. 2008) (explains read-in charges and advises against telling defendants they must admit guilt for read-in purposes)
State v. Frey, 343 Wis.2d 358 (Wis. 2012) (confirms sentencing courts may consider dismissed/uncharged offenses and discusses read-in procedure)
Bangert v. State, 131 Wis.2d 246 (Wis. 1986) (alternative postconviction path addressing defects in plea colloquy)