An attempted homicide charge was dismissed but remained available for consideration as the two defendants headed toward sentencing.

MENASHA, Wis. — Two Wisconsin men accused of attacking their roommates after a night of drinking and an argument over chores, internet access and the thermostat have pleaded no contest to three felony charges, resolving the central criminal allegations without a trial. Fernando Alejo-Tiburcio and Alberto Castillo-Serrano entered the pleas in August in a case stemming from a Dec. 20, 2025, confrontation at a Water Street residence in Menasha.

The pleas marked a major change in a case that had begun with an attempted first-degree intentional homicide charge against each man. Both instead pleaded no contest to first-degree recklessly endangering safety, aggravated battery involving great bodily harm and substantial battery. The attempted homicide counts were dismissed, according to reports based on Winnebago County court records, but were to be read into the record at sentencing. That distinction meant the most serious original charge was no longer a conviction count while the conduct behind it could still remain relevant to the court’s consideration of the case.

The prosecution grew out of a dispute among people sharing the Menasha home. According to criminal complaints reported by WBAY, several roommates had been drinking together before an argument developed over ordinary household matters. The subjects included chores, control of the thermostat and internet access. Two roommates identified in court records as V1 and V2 eventually left the residence and went for a walk for about an hour. The complaints do not reduce the case to those disagreements alone, however. What authorities described after the men returned was a much more serious confrontation involving threats, forced entry into a bedroom and injuries to both roommates.

After returning from the walk, V1 and V2 went upstairs and locked themselves in a bedroom, according to the complaints. Authorities alleged that Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano remained outside the room, yelled through the door and threatened to kill V1. The two defendants then forced the bedroom door open, the complaints said. Prosecutors alleged that both entered and attacked the men inside. The account presented publicly through the complaint did not describe the dispute as a single spontaneous blow or brief scuffle. Instead, it placed the locked door and the reported threats between the earlier household argument and the violence that followed.

V1 suffered the most serious injuries. He was able to leave the bedroom and reach another roommate’s room, where he reported that he had been stabbed. He was taken to a hospital and treated for head trauma, according to WBAY’s account of the complaint. Medical personnel documented 19 cuts to his head, and the injuries required stitches and staples. V2 also was injured and suffered multiple cuts while defending himself, the complaint said. NBC 26 reported soon after the arrests that the second victim had an injury to the hand. Public reporting has not identified either injured roommate by name.

The physical scene described by investigators became an important part of the allegations. Officers responding to the residence reported finding blood, tools and a knife with blood on it inside the home. Police then located Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano in a barricaded bedroom and took them into custody. The publicly reported complaint does not establish through forensic findings which specific object caused each injury or assign every wound to one defendant individually. The case was charged under Wisconsin’s party-to-a-crime framework, allowing prosecutors to allege joint criminal responsibility for the conduct described in the complaint.

The seriousness of the initial charges was reflected in the defendants’ first reported court appearances. On Dec. 26, 2025, Alejo-Tiburcio, then 20, and Castillo-Serrano, 22, appeared by video from the Winnebago County Jail. Prosecutor Anthony Prekop told the court that the victim had been stabbed in the head multiple times while threats to kill him were being made, according to NBC 26. Circuit Judge Michael D. Rust set cash bond at $250,000 for each defendant, citing the alleged violence and the substantial prison exposure associated with the charges. A victim attended the hearing but did not make a statement.

The bond conditions also showed how the court sought to separate the defendants from the people and circumstances involved in the case while it was pending. If released, each man was required to maintain absolute sobriety, possess no dangerous weapons, remain in Wisconsin and have no contact with either victim. The defendants also were ordered not to contact each other. NBC 26 reported that each could make a one-time trip to the property to retrieve personal belongings only with a police escort. The conditions were imposed before any finding of guilt and were part of the court’s management of the pending prosecution.

As the case moved forward, the eventual plea arrangement narrowed the legal issues. On Aug. 17, 2026, both defendants entered no-contest pleas to the three remaining offenses. A no-contest plea allows a Wisconsin court to enter a conviction without the defendant formally admitting the allegations in the same manner as a guilty plea. For purposes of the criminal case, however, the pleas permitted the court to find them guilty of the offenses and proceed to sentencing. The attempted homicide allegations, which carried the most severe potential punishment among the original counts, were dismissed as separate charges under the disposition reported by WBAY.

The remaining convictions were still serious felonies. At the December bond hearing, NBC 26 reported that first-degree recklessly endangering safety carried a maximum possible term of 12 years and six months, while the aggravated battery charge carried a potential maximum of 15 years and substantial battery carried up to three years and six months. Those figures described statutory exposure rather than a prediction of the actual sentence. Sentencing decisions can depend on the convictions, the facts accepted by the court, the defendants’ backgrounds, arguments from prosecutors and defense lawyers, statements from victims and other considerations presented at the hearing.

One unusual feature of the public record is the contrast between the everyday subjects of the initial argument and the severity of the criminal case that followed. The complaints identified chores, the thermostat and internet access as matters under discussion after the roommates had been drinking. Those details explain the setting of the dispute, but they do not establish a legal motive by themselves, and authorities have not publicly released a fuller explanation of why the confrontation escalated. The more consequential allegations for the prosecution were the reported death threat, the forced bedroom entry, the joint attack, the documented injuries and the evidence officers said they encountered after arriving.

The case also involved two alleged victims rather than only the roommate who suffered the 19 documented cuts. Prosecutors charged substantial battery along with aggravated battery and reckless endangerment, reflecting the broader confrontation described in the complaint. The second roommate’s injuries received less attention in early reports because V1 was hospitalized with the more severe head wounds. Still, the complaints said both men inside the locked room were attacked, and the later plea agreement preserved three felony counts against each defendant rather than reducing the matter to one injury allegation.

Castillo-Serrano was scheduled for sentencing on Sept. 2, 2026, and Alejo-Tiburcio was scheduled for sentencing on Sept. 23. Those dates have passed, but the reliable reports reviewed for this article did not establish the outcome of either hearing. The defendants’ precise sentences therefore should not be inferred from the plea agreement, the original charges or their pretrial custody status. What is established by the available reporting is that both men resolved the case through no-contest pleas to three felony offenses and that the attempted homicide charge against each was dismissed while remaining relevant for sentencing consideration.

Author note: Last updated September 28, 2026.