State v. Matthew W.L. Rolain

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
August 14, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal Nos.
2023AP2393-CR Cir. Ct. Nos. 2020CF529
2021CF17
2023AP2394-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

MATTHEW W.L. ROLAIN,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from judgments and an order of the circuit court for Rock
County: KARL HANSON, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Graham, P.J., Blanchard, and Nashold, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Matthew Rolain appeals judgments of conviction
and a circuit court order denying his motion to modify his sentence.1 Specifically,
Rolain argues that dismissal of criminal charges that were pending when he was
sentenced following revocation of his probation constitutes a new factor and that
the court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that dismissal of
the charges did not justify sentence modification. For the reasons stated below,
we reject Rolain’s arguments and affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Rolain was charged with threatening a law enforcement officer,
misdemeanor battery as an act of domestic abuse, and disorderly conduct as an act
of domestic abuse. The complaint alleged that Rolain physically assaulted and
injured A.B., with whom Rolain has a child, after Rolain became upset because he
found a baby carrier that A.B.’s ex-husband had given her.2 While talking with
the police who responded to the incident, Rolain said that he was going to have a
seizure, and when police told Rolain that an ambulance had been dispatched,
Rolain said that he was going to fight police and anyone else in the ambulance.

¶3 Rolain was released on a signature bond that prohibited him from
having contact with A.B. Rolain was charged in a separate case with felony bail
jumping after he contacted A.B. to borrow her car, which police learned of when

1
These appeals were consolidated for briefing and disposition by an order dated
January 29, 2024. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.10(3) (2023-24). All references to the Wisconsin
Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
2
Pursuant to the policy underlying WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86, we refer to A.B. using
initials that do not conform to her actual name.

2
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

A.B. called police because Rolain had not returned A.B.’s car the day that he said
he would.

¶4 As part of a global plea agreement, Rolain pled guilty as charged in
the two cases discussed above. The parties jointly recommended that the circuit
court withhold sentence and place Rolain on three years of probation, which the
court imposed.3

¶5 At the sentencing hearing, both the parties and the circuit court
recognized that Rolain had mental health issues for which he needed treatment,
and that Rolain should avail himself of treatment while on probation. When
recommending probation, Rolain’s counsel told the court that Rolain has an
“issue” with “rage” and “knows that if he’s not successful [on probation], if he
can’t get some of these things under control, then he faces a significant period of
time of incarceration. So that’s also a deterrence for him.” In discussing Rolain’s
“issue of rage,” the court observed:

[T]hat behavior is what lands you here. It’s what puts the
community at risk. It’s what jeopardizes stability for your
son. It’s something that we really have to have you work
on. I’m sure that you have, and it sounds like you are
committed to long-term treatment. We just got to make
sure that you get to the place where you’re getting
treatment on a regular basis, and that if you stick with that,
it’s going to keep you and the community safe going
forward.

3
In two other cases, Rolain was charged with disorderly conduct as an act of domestic
abuse; multiple charges of criminal damage to property, including as an act of domestic abuse;
resisting an officer; and multiple charges of felony bail jumping. The circuit court dismissed
these charges and read them in at Rolain’s sentencing, which was consistent with the parties’
recommendation as part of the global plea agreement.

3
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

¶6 Rolain’s probation was revoked after approximately seven months.
The revocation summary lists six specific violations of the terms of his probation,
namely, that Rolain: (1) had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with an individual
without her consent; (2) refused to let the alleged victim leave the residence;
(3) consumed alcohol on numerous occasions; (4) punched a fellow inmate four
times; (5) punched a different inmate in the face; and (6) refused to provide
information to his probation agent.

¶7 In addition to listing these specific violations, the revocation
summary states that Rolain was charged with sexual assault and false
imprisonment and described the allegations from the criminal complaint regarding
those charges. The revocation summary further states that Rolain failed to enroll
in mental health treatment, did not take his medications as prescribed, and tested
positive for cocaine and marijuana. The revocation summary states, “[I]t is clear
that Mr. Rolain did not take the rules of supervision seriously and was doing what
he wanted essentially from the start of his probation supervision.”

¶8 Rolain’s sentencing after revocation was held in front of the same
circuit court judge who presided at his original sentencing. The court sentenced
Rolain after his revocation to three years of initial confinement followed by two
years of extended supervision for each of the two felony counts (threatening a law
enforcement officer and felony bail jumping), to be served consecutively. The
court sentenced Rolain to nine months in jail for the misdemeanor battery count
and to ninety days in jail for the disorderly conduct count, to be served
concurrently with each other and with the sentence for the threatening a law
enforcement officer count. We discuss the court’s sentencing rationale in greater
detail in our analysis below.

4
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

¶9 After Rolain was sentenced, the State dismissed the sexual assault
and false imprisonment charges that had been pending against Rolain based on the
State’s representation that it could not prove the allegations beyond a reasonable
doubt. Rolain filed a postconviction motion to modify his sentence based on the
dismissal of those charges.

¶10 The circuit court denied Rolain’s motion. Specifically, the court
concluded that dismissal of the charges against Rolain did not constitute a new
factor because it was not highly relevant to sentencing, and that even if dismissal
of the charges was a new factor, modification was not warranted. Rolain appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶11 A circuit court may modify a criminal sentence when the defendant
has demonstrated the existence of a “new factor.” State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28,
¶35, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828. “Deciding a motion for sentence
modification based on a new factor is a two-step inquiry.” Id., ¶36. A defendant
“must demonstrate both the existence of a new factor and that the new factor
justifies modification of the sentence.” Id., ¶38. A new factor is “‘a fact or set of
facts highly relevant to the imposition of sentence, but not known to the trial judge
at the time of original sentencing, either because it was not then in existence or
because, even though it was then in existence, it was unknowingly overlooked by
all of the parties.’” Id., ¶40 (quoting Rosado v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 280, 288, 234
N.W.2d 69 (1975)).

¶12 As to the second step, “[w]e review the [circuit] court’s discretionary
determination of whether a new factor warrants sentence modification
deferentially.” State v. Verstoppen, 185 Wis. 2d 728, 741, 519 N.W.2d 653 (Ct.
App. 1994). We will sustain the court’s decision “if it is the product of a rational

5
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

mental process and is ‘demonstrably ... made and based upon the facts appearing
in the record and in reliance on the appropriate and applicable law.” Id. (omission
in original) (quoting State v. Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d 315, 330, 431 N.W.2d 165
(1988)). “It is recognized that a trial court in an exercise of its discretion may
reasonably reach a conclusion which another ... court may not reach, but it must be
a decision which a reasonable ... court could [reach]....” Verstoppen, 185 Wis. 2d
at 741 (omissions and alteration in original) (quoting Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d at
330).

¶13 For purposes of this opinion, we will assume without deciding that
Rolain has demonstrated that dismissal of his sexual assault and false
imprisonment charges is a new factor. However, Rolain has not shown that the
circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that dismissal
of these charges did not justify modifying Rolain’s sentence.

¶14 At the hearing on Rolain’s motion for sentence modification, the
circuit court stated that modification was not warranted because, even if the court
had not considered the sexual assault and false imprisonment charges at the time
of sentencing, the court would have imposed the same sentence for the same
reasons:

[The reasons] are reflected in the transcript from the …
sentencing [after revocation] hearing …. And that is that
these were serious criminal violations, that you
demonstrated an unwillingness to submit yourself to
treatment in the community, and … there was a need for
protection of the community while you were undertaking
treatment. The sentence … imposed a prison term on the
offense that renders you ineligible for the Substance Abuse
Program or the Challenge Incarceration Program. And then
following that, a consecutive sentence for the bail jumping
offense which allows you eligibility for both of those
programs. And for the same reasons that I stated [during
sentencing after revocation], I find that that’s an

6
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

appropriate disposition here, because it provided an
element of punishment, and it provides the opportunity for
rehabilitation in a confined setting where you’re not going
to have an option about how you’re doing treatment.
You’re going to have to do the treatment the way that the
State recommends and dictates because I believe that’s the
only way the treatment is going to happen here
successfully, and that it needs to happen in that confined
setting, and it then gives you the opportunity to undertake
that treatment and earn your way back into the community.
And I believe that that is appropriate in this case.

As these comments show, the court concluded that even setting aside the sexual
assault and false imprisonment charges, the seriousness of the underlying criminal
charges to which Rolain had pled guilty, Rolain’s unwillingness to seek treatment,
and the need to protect the community justified Rolain’s sentence. This does not
constitute an erroneous exercise of discretion: the court applied the proper legal
standard, examined the relevant facts, and employed a rational mental process to
reach a reasonable conclusion. See Verstoppen, 185 Wis. 2d at 741 (concluding
that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined
that the defendant’s acquittal on charges that were pending at the time of
sentencing did not justify modifying the defendant’s sentence). Rolain’s
arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.

¶15 We begin by rejecting Rolain’s argument that, in denying Rolain’s
motion for sentence modification, the circuit court erroneously exercised its
discretion because the sexual assault and false imprisonment charges “dominated”
the sentencing after revocation hearing and were “the underpinning of the court’s
sentence structure.”

¶16 Although the prosecutor mentioned the sexual assault and false
imprisonment charges at the sentencing after revocation hearing, the charges were
not the focus of the prosecutor’s arguments—for example, the prosecutor stated,

7
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

“[Rolain] does have pending charges in regards to the rape allegation, and so I
won’t get into those. He’ll have to fight those another day in a different
jurisdiction ….” Otherwise, the prosecutor did not rely on the sexual assault and
false imprisonment charges in its sentencing argument. Relatedly, Rolain’s
counsel argued at the sentencing after revocation hearing:

[Rolain] has an open case … [that] is scheduled for
a jury trial, so he is actively litigating that, and … he will
have a jury of his peers to decide if he is guilty or innocent
of those charges. I understand that the Court … can take
into consideration adjustment under supervision and the
reasons for revocation, but I’m asking the Court to also
consider … that he is innocent until proven guilty, and he
does have a jury trial scheduled in that matter.

¶17 Consistent with the parties’ treatment of the pending charges at the
sentencing after revocation hearing, the circuit court stated:

Obviously, the allegations that are laid out in the
revocation materials are incredibly serious, and those are
something that’ll be addressed by another Court on another
day. The lawyers I think have put them in the appropriate
context, and that is that it’s fair for the Court to take a look
at those … as allegations, but to consider them when it
comes to adjustment on supervision and to consider them in
the context of character, which is very important for what
we address today.

The court also informed Rolain:

[W]e’re not here to punish you for a failure on probation.
That’s not the point here. And your attorney has made a
very good argument for the fact that we are to punish you
here for the underlying conduct. We’re not here to punish
you for something else or to enhance that punishment
because you were not successful on probation. That’s not
our purpose or goal here.

The court ultimately determined that “there is a risk to the community here as long
as you are refusing to follow the rules in the community … while you are in need

8
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

of rehabilitation,” and that “a lengthy period of incarceration is going to be
necessary to protect the community.”

¶18 The circuit court considered the allegations as they pertained to
Rolain’s adjustment to supervision and his character as the court was allowed to
do, see State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶45, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341 (“A
sentencing court may consider uncharged and unproven offenses and facts related
to offenses for which the defendant has been acquitted.” (footnotes omitted)), but
the court treated these as allegations only, and not as conduct for which Rolain
could be punished at that time. Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, the
court placed far more emphasis on Rolain’s failure to seek treatment for his mental
health and substance abuse issues, the seriousness of the conduct for which he was
being sentenced, and his numerous violations of his terms of probation.
Accordingly, we reject Rolain’s argument that the sexual assault and false
imprisonment charges “dominated” the sentencing after revocation hearing, and
his suggestion that, as a result, the court erroneously exercised its discretion when
it concluded that it would have imposed the same sentence for the same reasons
even if it did not consider the sexual assault and false imprisonment charges.

¶19 Rolain also challenges the specific reasons that the circuit court
provided when denying Rolain’s motion for sentence modification. First, Rolain
argues that “the court’s conclusion that Mr. Rolain was unwilling to submit to
treatment in the community is incorrect.” Specifically, Rolain argues that
obtaining treatment was made more difficult because of the COVID-19 pandemic,
that Rolain was out of custody for only four months before being placed back in
custody for probation violations, and that Rolain was referred to treatment the
week before he was taken into custody.

9
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

¶20 However, Rolain’s revocation summary shows that Rolain not only
failed to enroll in treatment while on probation, but also that Rolain routinely
missed treatment appointments and that he went almost two months without his
“psychological medications” before informing his probation agent of that fact. In
addition, after his probation agent gave Rolain the opportunity to obtain mental
health treatment from a provider of Rolain’s own choosing, as Rolain requested,
Rolain failed to meet his probation agent’s one-month deadline for doing so.
Together with Rolain’s failure to attend appointments with his probation agent and
to tell his agent that he was not taking his medications, this resulted in Rolain
being referred to treatment shortly before he was taken into custody. The
revocation summary also shows that Rolain tested positive for cocaine and
marijuana, that he admitted to drinking alcohol, and that when he was taken into
custody regarding the sexual assault and false imprisonment charges, a
preliminary breath test indicated that he had a blood-alcohol concentration of .214.

¶21 Moreover, in sentencing Rolain after revocation, the circuit court
determined that Rolain failed to make sufficient efforts at treatment while on
probation, even after taking into account the challenges that the COVID-19
pandemic created for him. When Rolain addressed the court at the sentencing
after revocation hearing, Rolain specifically argued that obtaining treatment was
difficult because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court acknowledged that the
COVID-19 pandemic caused “quite a bit of turmoil for everybody, particularly[]
those that were seeking treatment.” However, the court determined that Rolain’s
“efforts towards treatment were rather minimal out in the community” and that
Rolain was “only interested in doing treatment on [his] terms.” Because the facts
in the record support the court’s finding that Rolain “demonstrated an
unwillingness to submit … to treatment in the community,” Rolain’s argument

10
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

fails. See Verstoppen, 185 Wis. 2d at 741 (stating that we will uphold a circuit
court’s exercise of discretion if it is “‘made and based upon the facts appearing in
the record’” (quoting Robinson, 146 Wis. 2d at 330)).

¶22 Second, Rolain asserts that the circuit court relied on the sexual
assault and false imprisonment charges at the sentencing after revocation hearing
when it determined that the protection of the public required that Rolain’s
treatment occur in custody. Rolain argues that the court erroneously exercised its
discretion when, in denying Rolain’s motion for sentence modification, it failed to
consider this initial reliance on the sexual assault and false imprisonment charges.
We reject Rolain’s argument because we reject his premise—which is belied by
the record—that it was the sexual assault and false imprisonment charges that
caused the court to conclude that Rolain’s treatment must occur while in custody.
Addressing Rolain, the court explained:

[Y]our efforts towards treatment were rather minimal out in
the community, and … based on the record, I would agree
that you’re only interested in doing treatment on your
terms, and that is a complicating factor for us here.

So I do find that rehabilitation is going to be very
important here and is necessary for you and, frankly, in
order to protect the community, and it’s only going to work
in a confined setting at this point because you’re not willing
to do it under the terms that the Department [of
Corrections] has given you out in the community.

Thus, the record shows that the court relied on Rolain’s failure to obtain treatment
while on probation—and not on the alleged conduct underlying the sexual assault
and false imprisonment charges—in determining that protection of the public
required that Rolain’s treatment occur while Rolain is in custody.

11
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

¶23 Moreover, there are ample facts in the record supporting the circuit
court’s conclusion that, even setting aside the sexual assault and false
imprisonment charges, Rolain’s sentence was necessary to protect the public. In
addition to noting Rolain’s repeated failure to obtain treatment, Rolain’s
revocation summary states that Rolain punched two inmates on separate
occasions; that Rolain, while in custody, threatened to slit a deputy’s throat; and
that Rolain fled from police after they responded to a report of a domestic
disturbance. The revocation summary further states, “It appears that Mr. Rolain’s
activity under supervision has been the exact same activity he participated in to be
placed on supervision in the first place.” And recall that Rolain pled guilty to and
was sentenced for threatening a law enforcement officer, misdemeanor battery as
an act of domestic abuse, disorderly conduct as an act of domestic abuse, and
felony bail jumping. Further, as noted, the charges that were dismissed but read in
at Rolain’s original sentencing were for disorderly conduct as an act of domestic
abuse; multiple charges of criminal damage to property, including as an act of
domestic abuse; resisting an officer; and multiple charges of felony bail jumping.

¶24 In sum, Rolain has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court
erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that dismissal of the sexual
assault and false imprisonment charges did not justify modifying Rolain’s
sentence.

CONCLUSION

¶25 For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

12
Nos. 2023AP2393-CR
2023AP2394-CR

By the Court.—Judgments and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

13