The public account rests on criminal complaints, police observations and felony pleas rather than evidence presented during a completed trial.
MENASHA, Wis. — The criminal case against Fernando Alejo-Tiburcio and Alberto Castillo-Serrano contains several different kinds of facts: injuries documented after a violent confrontation, evidence police said they found inside a Water Street home, allegations recorded in criminal complaints and, months later, three felony convictions entered after each man pleaded no contest.
Keeping those categories separate is important to understanding what the public record does and does not establish. The men were originally charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, aggravated battery and substantial battery after the Dec. 20, 2025, confrontation. On Aug. 17, 2026, both pleaded no contest to the final three charges. The attempted homicide count was dismissed but was to be read into the sentencing record. Because the case did not proceed to a completed trial, many details of the attack remain known through allegations in the complaints rather than jury findings about each disputed fact.
One part of the record is comparatively straightforward: a roommate suffered substantial injuries and received hospital treatment. The criminal complaint, as reported by WBAY, said the man identified as V1 had 19 cuts to his head and required stitches and staples. He was held for head trauma. Another roommate, V2, suffered multiple cuts while defending himself, according to authorities. NBC 26 reported after the arrests that the second victim had an injury to the hand. Neither victim has been publicly identified in the reliable reports reviewed for this article.
Police also described what they saw after arriving at the residence. Officers reported finding blood, tools and a knife with blood on it. They found Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano in a barricaded bedroom and arrested them. Those observations became part of the early case narrative. The published material does not, however, provide a full laboratory report identifying whose blood was on each item, a forensic analysis assigning individual wounds to particular objects or a trial exhibit establishing the role of every tool investigators found. The distinction prevents the evidence described at the scene from being overstated.
The allegations about how the violence began come mainly from the criminal complaints. Several roommates had been drinking together before a disagreement developed over chores, thermostat settings and access to the internet, WBAY reported. Two of the roommates, V1 and V2, left the home and walked for about an hour. When they returned, they went into an upstairs bedroom and locked the door. The complaints said Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano yelled outside the room, threatened to kill V1 and eventually forced the door open.
Authorities alleged that the two defendants then entered and attacked both occupants. V1 later managed to get out of the room and reach another roommate, reporting that he had been stabbed. That account, combined with the documented injuries and what police said they found in the residence, formed the basis for the serious charges that followed. Still, because the matter was resolved by pleas, there was no completed jury trial in which prosecutors had to prove every narrative detail while defense attorneys challenged the evidence and witnesses before a verdict.
The first court proceedings reflected the prosecution’s view of the case’s seriousness. Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano appeared by video from the Winnebago County Jail on Dec. 26, 2025. Prosecutor Anthony Prekop told the court the principal victim had been stabbed in the head multiple times while threats were made to kill him, according to NBC 26. Judge Michael D. Rust set a $250,000 cash bond for each defendant. He cited the violence alleged in the case and the potential prison exposure the defendants faced.
The bond hearing established no guilt, but it did produce a set of court-ordered restrictions. Both defendants were directed to have no contact with the victims and no contact with each other. They were required to maintain sobriety, possess no dangerous weapons and remain in Wisconsin if released. Any return to the property to retrieve belongings had to occur once and with a police escort. The conditions show the steps the court took while the accusations were pending; they should not be confused with punishment imposed after conviction.
The original charging documents accused each man of the same four offenses under party-to-a-crime provisions. That legal structure meant prosecutors were not necessarily required to attribute every act to one defendant in isolation in order to pursue joint responsibility. The attempted first-degree intentional homicide charge carried the greatest reported maximum penalty, while the remaining counts also carried possible prison terms measured in years. At the December appearance, NBC 26 reported potential maximums of 12 years and six months for first-degree reckless endangerment, 15 years for aggravated battery and three years and six months for substantial battery.
Those maximum penalties provide context but not a sentencing formula. A statutory ceiling is the most punishment legally authorized for an offense under the circumstances described; it is not evidence that a judge will impose that amount. Nor does the $250,000 cash bond predict a final sentence. Bond serves a different purpose before a case is resolved. Any accurate account of the defendants’ punishment must therefore depend on a sentencing judgment or a reliable report of the hearing rather than an attempt to calculate a result from the charging statutes.
The August plea hearing resolved the question of criminal liability on three counts without resolving every factual question raised in the complaints. Both men pleaded no contest to reckless endangerment, aggravated battery and substantial battery. Once accepted by the court, those pleas permitted convictions to be entered. They did not produce convictions for attempted homicide. Prosecutors dismissed that charge, although the reported arrangement allowed it to be considered as a read-in matter during sentencing. Describing the defendants simply as having been convicted of attempted murder would therefore be inaccurate.
The plea agreement also explains why some vivid details from the early complaint should continue to be attributed to authorities. The threat to kill V1, the forced entry through the bedroom door and the precise sequence of the attack were allegations used to support the prosecution. They are highly relevant to the story, but a no-contest plea to other offenses is not the same thing as a jury returning specific factual findings on every sentence in a complaint. Responsible reporting can include those allegations while making clear where they came from.
The same principle applies to motive. The case has attracted attention because the complaint mentioned chores, a thermostat and internet access, all routine issues within a shared household. Those subjects were reportedly part of the argument. They do not, by themselves, establish why the defendants allegedly escalated the confrontation to violence. No reliable source reviewed for this article provides a comprehensive account of earlier tensions among the roommates or a judicial finding that one household disagreement was the sole motive. Framing the violence as definitively caused by a thermostat dispute would go beyond the verified record.
Alcohol also appears in the complaint as part of the setting, not as a proven explanation. Authorities said the roommates had been drinking before the disagreement. The sources reviewed do not provide toxicology findings, quantities consumed or expert testimony about the effect alcohol had on either defendant. It is therefore accurate to say drinking preceded the confrontation. It would be speculation to state that intoxication caused the attack or determined either man’s mental state.
Another unresolved area is the victims’ recovery. The initial reports describe V1’s head injuries, stitches, staples and hospitalization, as well as V2’s cuts. They do not provide a later medical assessment establishing whether either man experienced permanent physical effects. The absence of that information is not evidence that the injuries were minor; the complaint plainly described serious immediate harm. It simply means later outcomes should not be supplied from assumption.
After the pleas, Castillo-Serrano was scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 2 and Alejo-Tiburcio on Sept. 23. Those hearings were scheduled to determine punishment after the convictions. As of Sept. 28, the reliable published reports located for this article did not establish the results of either sentencing proceeding. That leaves a clear line between what can be stated confidently and what remains unavailable: the three felony convictions for each man are verified, while their final sentences could not be confirmed from the reliable material reviewed.
The case record therefore tells a substantial story without requiring speculation. Two roommates were injured, one seriously. Police said they encountered blood and a bloody knife inside the home. Prosecutors brought four felony allegations against each of two men and obtained three felony convictions through no-contest pleas. The most serious original charge was dismissed rather than adjudicated as a conviction. The detailed accusations explain how authorities said the confrontation unfolded, while the absence of a trial and a verified sentencing update defines the limits of what can responsibly be reported now.
Author note: Last updated September 28, 2026.