The defendants initially faced attempted homicide allegations after a roommate suffered 19 documented cuts during a December confrontation.
OSHKOSH, Wis. — When Fernando Alejo-Tiburcio and Alberto Castillo-Serrano first appeared in court after a violent confrontation at their Menasha home, a judge set cash bond at $250,000 for each man. They faced attempted first-degree intentional homicide allegations, substantial potential prison time and orders separating them from the two roommates authorities said had been attacked.
That was the case in late December 2025. By Aug. 17, 2026, the prosecution had taken a different path. Both men entered no-contest pleas to first-degree recklessly endangering safety, aggravated battery and substantial battery. Prosecutors dismissed the attempted homicide charge against each defendant but arranged for the allegation to be read into the record during sentencing. The resolution avoided a trial while leaving both defendants convicted of three felony offenses arising from the attack.
The contrast between those two court moments helps define the case. At the initial hearing, the allegations were unproven and prosecutors were focused on pretrial detention, public safety and ensuring the defendants returned to court. At the plea hearing months later, the case moved into the sentencing phase because the no-contest pleas allowed convictions to be entered. What did not change was the underlying event described by authorities: a confrontation at a Water Street residence that left one roommate with major head injuries and another with cuts.
NBC 26 reported that Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano appeared by video from the Winnebago County Jail on Dec. 26, six days after the confrontation. Prosecutor Anthony Prekop told the court the principal victim had been stabbed in the head multiple times while threats were being made to kill him. A victim attended that hearing but declined to address the court. Judge Michael D. Rust said the violence alleged in the case and the potential punishment supported a substantial cash bond and set the amount at $250,000 for each defendant.
Rust also imposed conditions designed to prevent contact among the people involved. The men were ordered to have no contact with either victim and no contact with each other. If released, they had to remain sober, possess no dangerous weapons and stay in Wisconsin. They could return to the residence once to retrieve belongings only with police present. The orders illustrate the seriousness with which the court treated the allegations, but they were not findings of guilt. Bail decisions occur before the evidence is resolved through a plea or trial.
The criminal complaints later reported by WBAY placed the violence within a night of drinking among roommates. Authorities said an argument developed over chores, the thermostat and internet access. Two men identified as V1 and V2 left the home and walked for about an hour. After returning, they went upstairs and locked themselves in a bedroom. The complaints alleged that Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano stood outside, yelled through the door and threatened to kill V1 before forcing the door open.
Authorities said both defendants then went into the room and attacked the two men. V1 suffered serious head injuries and eventually escaped into another roommate’s room, where he said he had been stabbed. At the hospital, clinicians documented 19 cuts to his head. The injuries required stitches and staples, and he was held for treatment of head trauma. V2 suffered multiple cuts while trying to defend himself, according to the complaint. NBC 26 separately reported that the second victim had a hand injury.
Police arriving at the residence reported finding blood, tools and a knife with blood on it. Officers located Alejo-Tiburcio and Castillo-Serrano in a barricaded bedroom and arrested them. The published accounts do not contain a complete inventory of laboratory testing or a trial record linking each injury to a particular weapon or defendant. That gap became especially relevant once the case ended in pleas rather than a jury trial, because the public did not receive the kind of day-by-day evidentiary presentation that might otherwise have clarified disputed details.
Each man had originally faced four counts with party-to-a-crime modifiers: attempted first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, aggravated battery with intent to cause great bodily harm and substantial battery. At the December hearing, NBC 26 reported that the attempted homicide allegation carried a possible sentence of up to 60 years. The reported maximums for the other offenses were 12 years and six months for reckless endangerment, 15 years for aggravated battery and three years and six months for substantial battery.
Those statutory maximums are not sentences and should not be added together as though they automatically determine what a judge will impose. Sentencing involves judicial discretion within the law and can include arguments about the seriousness of the conduct, the defendants’ histories, protection of the public, rehabilitation and statements from those affected. The dismissal of the attempted homicide charge also materially changed the convictions on which the defendants could be sentenced. At the same time, the agreement allowing that allegation to be read in meant the underlying conduct was not simply erased from the court’s sentencing consideration.
The plea itself also requires careful description. Neither man was reported to have pleaded guilty to attempted homicide. Both pleaded no contest to the three other offenses. A no-contest plea permits a criminal conviction without requiring the defendant to use the plea hearing to formally admit the allegations in the same way associated with a guilty plea. Once accepted by the court, however, it resolves the criminal count and permits sentencing. For that reason, the defendants can accurately be described as convicted on the three plea counts, while the dismissed attempted homicide count remains a separate part of the case history.
The domestic setting of the confrontation drew attention because the subjects mentioned in the complaint were mundane: chores, temperature settings and internet access. But those details can be misleading if treated as a complete explanation of what happened. The publicly available reports do not establish a single motive, describe all prior relations among the roommates or explain whether earlier tensions existed. The complaint establishes that those subjects were part of the argument before the violence. It does not establish that a disagreement about any one household issue, standing alone, explains the alleged threats and assault.
The alcohol reference requires similar caution. Authorities said several roommates had been drinking before the dispute. No reliable report reviewed for this article provides quantities, blood-alcohol measurements or a medical determination of intoxication for either defendant. The fact belongs in the chronology because it was included in the criminal complaint, but it should not be used to diagnose the defendants’ state of mind or supply a motive that prosecutors did not publicly establish. The legally significant conduct remained the reckless-endangerment and battery offenses resolved through the pleas.
The victims’ identities also remain outside the published record reviewed for this report. News accounts have used the complaint designations V1 and V2, and no reliable source consulted here provided a reason to identify them further. The available material documents the immediate injuries, particularly V1’s head trauma, but does not provide a detailed account of either victim’s long-term recovery. Reporting beyond those confirmed medical details would require information that has not been made public in the sources reviewed.
After accepting the August pleas, the court set separate sentencing dates. Castillo-Serrano was scheduled for Sept. 2, and Alejo-Tiburcio was scheduled for Sept. 23. Both dates are now in the past, but the reliable published reports located for this article did not confirm what punishment, if any, was announced at either proceeding. The absence of a verified sentencing report means the defendants’ final prison or supervision terms cannot responsibly be stated or inferred from the original bond amounts, statutory maximums or charging documents.
The public record that can be verified therefore shows a case that narrowed substantially over nine months. It began with attempted homicide charges, unusually high cash bonds and restrictions on contact. It moved through criminal complaints describing a locked bedroom, threats and serious injuries. It ended the trial phase with three no-contest pleas for each defendant and dismissal of the attempted homicide counts. The final sentencing outcomes remain the principal unresolved part of that chronology in the reliable material reviewed as of Sept. 28.
Author note: Last updated September 28, 2026.