State v. Kurtis W. Berberich

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
October 14, 2026
To:
Hon. Ralph M. Ramirez
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Monica Paz
Clerk of Circuit Court
Waukesha County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Mark S. Rosen
Electronic Notice
Kurtis W. Berberich, #320097
Fox Lake Correctional Institution
W10237 Lake Emily Road
P.O. Box 200
Fox Lake, WI 53933
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP2442-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Kurtis W. Berberich (L.C. #2022CF314)
Before Lazar, P.J., Gundrum, and Grogan, JJ.
Summary disposition orders 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).
Appointed counsel for Kurtis W. Berberich filed a no-merit report pursuant to WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.32 (2023-24)1 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel provided
Berberich with a copy of the report, and both counsel and this court advised him of his right to
file a response, which he has done.2 Counsel then filed a supplemental response addressing
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
2 On Berberich’s request, this court considers only his January 27, 2026, filing as his no-merit
response and not his subsequent related filings.

No. 2025AP2442-CRNM
2
issues Berberich raised. We conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See
WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. After our independent review of the Record, we further conclude there
is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal. We summarily affirm the
judgment of conviction.
Berberich was charged with several felonies after an incident in which he beat up his
elderly parents, then-ages 65 and 70, in front of his minor son. Pursuant to an agreement with
the State, Berberich pled guilty or no contest to one count of Physical Abuse of an Elder Person,
Intentionally Cause Bodily Harm, Likely to Produce Great Bodily Harm, Domestic Abuse,
contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 940.198(2)c, 939.50(3)(f), and 968.075(1)(a); one count of Physical
Abuse of an Elder Person, Intentionally Cause Great Bodily Harm, Domestic Abuse, contrary to
WIS. STAT. §§ 940.19(2)(a), 939.50(3)c, and 968.075(1)(a); and one count of Cause Mental
Harm to a Child, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 948.04(1), and 939.50(3)(f). Two counts of
attempted first-degree intentional homicide were dismissed outright as part of the agreement.
The circuit court imposed an aggregate sentence of 27 years of initial confinement and 14 years
of extended supervision. This no-merit appeal follows.
The no-merit report discusses whether the circuit court erred in rejecting Berberich’s plea
of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI) based on the examining doctors’
conclusions; whether there would be arguable merit to a claim that Berberich did not knowingly,
intelligently, or voluntarily enter his pleas; and whether there would be any merit to a challenge
to the circuit court’s sentence. We address each of these potential issues briefly below, but note
that in his response to the no-merit report, Berberich concedes that “the 3 issues [appointed
appellate counsel] mentions were complete non[-]issues.”

No. 2025AP2442-CRNM
3
First, we agree with the conclusion in the no-merit report that any challenge to the
rejection of Berberich’s NGI plea would be meritless. As noted in the report, the examining
doctors independently concluded that there would be no basis upon which a jury could conclude
that Berberich was not criminally responsible for his actions on the night he battered his parents.
Berberich admitted multiple times that he was under the influence of alcohol and psilocybin
mushrooms during the incident. A voluntarily induced state of intoxication by drugs or alcohol
or both does not constitute a mental disease or defect. See WIS JI—CRIMINAL 605 (2011); State
vs. Kolisnitschenko, 84 Wis. 2d 492, 267 N.W.2d 321 (1976); Gibson vs. State, 55 Wis. 2d 110,
197 N.W.2d 813 (1972). There is no arguable merit to this issue.
The no-merit report further satisfies this court that the plea colloquy sufficiently complied
with the requirements of State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906,
and WIS. STAT. § 971.08 relating to the nature of the charge, the rights Berberich was waiving,
and other matters. The Record shows no other ground to withdraw the plea, nor any ineffective
assistance of trial counsel related to the plea. There is no arguable merit to this issue.
The no-merit report also addresses whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its
sentencing discretion. The standards for the circuit court and this court on sentencing issues are
well-established and need not be repeated here. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶17-51, 270
Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. In this case, the court considered appropriate factors, did not
consider improper factors, and reached a reasonable result well under the potential maximum
sentence. There is no arguable merit to this issue.
Although he admits that there would be no merit to any challenge based on the issues
discussed above, Berberich raises a slew of issues in his response that he claims defeat appointed

No. 2025AP2442-CRNM
4
counsel’s assertion that there are no potentially meritorious issues from which to appeal. Among
his concerns, Berberich claims he was denied his right to file certain pretrial motions due to his
trial counsels’ conclusions that any such motions would be frivolous. He also specifically cites
to issues regarding self-defense, multiplicity, attorney motions to withdraw, and non-litigated
suppression motions.3
In Wisconsin, the general rule is that a guilty or no-contest plea waives all
nonjurisdictional defects, including constitutional claims. State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶18, 294
Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886. This rule is referred to as the “guilty-plea-waiver rule.” Id. By
signing the written plea questionnaire, Berberich openly acknowledged that he was giving up his
right to raise many of the challenges he now advances in his response. See State v.
Moederndorfer, 141 Wis. 2d 823, 827-29, 416 N.W.2d 627. There is no arguable merit to any of
the pretrial concerns Berberich voices.
Contrary to Berberich’s position, we also conclude that trial counsel and appointed
appellate counsel did not perform deficiently; our review of the Record and other submissions
before us confirms that there would be no basis on which to challenge counsels’ performance.
3 Throughout the pretrial proceedings and again in his response on appeal, Berberich complains
that the two attempted homicide charges were multiplicitous, arguing that the State violated his rights by
charging him with multiple offenses as to each of his parents. However, with respect to his multiplicity
issue raised in his response, our review establishes that the plea negotiations resolved that issue. The two
allegedly multiplicitous counts concerning his parents were dismissed by the State outright as part of the
agreement with Berberich. Instead, he pled guilty to only one count as to each parent, and a third count as
to his son.

No. 2025AP2442-CRNM
5
See generally State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶32, 381 Wis. 2d 560, 912 N.W.2d 89 (discussing the
standard for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel).4
Our review of the Record discloses no other potential issues for appeal. See State v.
Allen, 2010 WI 89, ¶¶81-82, 328 Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 124. We conclude that any further
appellate proceedings would be wholly frivolous within the meaning of Anders and WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.32.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Mark S. Rosen is relieved from further
representing Kurtis W. Berberich in this appeal. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
4 To the extent that we do not specifically address issues raised in Berberich’s response, we
conclude that appointed counsel’s supplemental response sufficiently concludes that such issues would be
without merit. We do not address them further.