State v. Brandon J. Hunter-Moncree

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. Rebecca L. Persick
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Chris Koenig
Clerk of Circuit Court
Sheboygan County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Andrew H. Morgan
Electronic Notice
Jacob J. Wittwer
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP1264-CR State of Wisconsin v. Brandon J. Hunter-Moncree
(L.C. #2018CF466)
Before Lazar, P.J., Gundrum, and LoCoco, 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).
Brandon J. Hunter-Moncree appeals a trial court order denying postconviction relief. He
argues that the court applied the wrong legal standard to his presentencing motion for a new trial
based on recantation evidence and erroneously rejected the recantation. He also challenges the
court’s treatment of evidence concerning State witness Marilyn Zamora. In his reply brief,
Hunter-Moncree withdrew his remaining challenge alleging cumulative impact concerning the
prosecutor’s closing argument and the bullet evidence. Based upon our review of the briefs and

No. 2025AP1264-CR
2
Record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition.
See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The charges against Hunter-Moncree arose from a late-night home invasion in June 2018.
Three masked men entered the victim’s residence after announcing “Sheboygan Police
Department.” One invader repeatedly struck the victim with a handgun while the other men
robbed the residence. The victim later identified Hunter-Moncree as the invader who
pistol-whipped him based on the man’s voice, body size, and shape. The jury also heard
testimony from Zamora and Alexandra Zastrow, both who knew Hunter-Moncree. Zamora
testified that Zastrow told her that Hunter-Moncree was one of the perpetrators and had told her
about hurting the victim. During her testimony, Zastrow denied telling Zamora anything about
Hunter-Moncree hurting the victim. Ultimately, the jury found Hunter-Moncree guilty of
impersonating a peace officer, armed burglary, substantial battery, each as party to a crime, and
possession of THC.
Lewis Funches also testified at trial. Funches stated that Hunter-Moncree discussed the
planned burglary with him and later described how he committed it. Funches further testified
that Hunter-Moncree brought several guns to Funches’s residence after the invasion because
Hunter-Moncree believed “the police were looking for him.” During a later search, police found
a revolver purchased by Hunter-Moncree hidden in a floor vent at Funches’s residence.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2025AP1264-CR
3
Before sentencing, Hunter-Moncree moved for a new trial after Funches partially
recanted. Funches denied that Hunter-Moncree admitted committing the offenses, but Funches
did not recant his testimony concerning Hunter-Moncree hiding the gun. After an evidentiary
hearing, the trial court found “that there was no actual agreement that Mr. Funches would receive
consideration” in his own criminal case for testifying against Hunter-Moncree. The court further
found that Funches recanted only after receiving a substantial sentence and being disappointed
with the outcome of his case. Applying the framework for newly-discovered recantation
evidence outlined in State v. McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d 463, 473-74, 561 N.W.2d 707 (1997), the
court denied the motion for a new trial. Hunter-Moncree renewed his arguments in a
postconviction motion, which the court also denied. Hunter-Moncree appeals.
DISCUSSION
Hunter-Moncree first argues that the trial court should have analyzed his motion under
State v. Kivioja, 225 Wis. 2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), rather than McCallum. Kivioja
applied the fair-and-just reason standard to a defendant’s presentencing request to withdraw a
plea based on witness recantation. Kivioja, 225 Wis. 2d at 283-84. McCallum addressed
newly-discovered recantation evidence in postsentencing postconviction relief. McCallum, 208
Wis. 2d at 473-76. Hunter-Moncree reasons that Kivioja controls because he filed his motion
after trial but before sentencing.
We do not decide which framework would apply to a preserved claim in these
circumstances because Hunter-Moncree forfeited the issue. The forfeiture rule requires a party
to raise an issue in the trial court before seeking appellate review. State v. Huebner, 2000 WI
59, ¶¶10-11 & n.2, 235 Wis. 2d 486, 492, 611 N.W.2d 727. The rule gives the trial court an

No. 2025AP1264-CR
4
opportunity to address an asserted error and prevents a party from obtaining appellate review by
taking a different position after the proceedings below. Id., ¶12.
Hunter-Moncree’s new trial motion expressly relied on the recantation standard stated in
McCallum and State v. McAlister, 2018 WI 34, ¶¶31-33, 380 Wis. 2d 684, 911 N.W.2d 77. He
did not ask the trial court to apply Kivioja until his later postconviction motion. The court did
not err by applying the standard Hunter-Moncree asked it to apply when deciding the new trial
motion. Thus, Hunter-Moncree forfeited his argument that the court should instead have applied
Kivioja. See Huebner, 235 Wis. 2d 486, ¶¶10-11 & n.2.
Next, Hunter-Moncree argues that even under McCallum, the trial court erroneously
rejected Funches’s recantation. A defendant seeking a new trial based on newly-discovered
evidence must establish, among other requirements, that the evidence is not merely cumulative
and that a reasonable probability exists that the evidence would produce a different result.
McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d at 473. When the new evidence is a recantation, the defendant must
also corroborate it with other newly-discovered evidence. Id. at 476. “Corroboration requires
newly discovered evidence of both: (1) a feasible motive for the initial false statement; and
(2) circumstantial guarantees of the trustworthiness of the recantation.” McAlister, 380 Wis. 2d
684, ¶58. A trial court’s decision whether to grant a new trial based on newly-discovered
evidence rests within its discretion, and we uphold its factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
State v. Plude, 2008 WI 58, ¶31, 310 Wis. 2d 28, 750 N.W.2d 42; State v. Vollbrecht, 2012 WI
App 90, ¶18, 344 Wis. 2d 69, 820 N.W.2d 443.
The Record supports the trial court’s finding that Funches’s recantation lacked
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Funches claimed that law enforcement had

No. 2025AP1264-CR
5
promised favorable consideration in his own case in exchange for his testimony against
Hunter-Moncree. The court found that no such agreement existed. Funches admitted that he
was upset by the State’s plea offer and the 15-year initial confinement sentence he ultimately
received. He signed a statement recanting his testimony 16 days after his own sentencing. The
victim further testified that he encountered Funches after Funches returned from sentencing. At
that time, Funches asked the victim to tell Hunter-Moncree that Funches would “take back” his
trial testimony.
Based on this evidence, the trial court found that Funches recanted because he was
disappointed with his sentence, rather than because his trial testimony implicating
Hunter-Moncree was false. The court was entitled to weigh those statements and assess the
witness’s credibility. See McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d at 488 (plurality opinion) (Abrahamson, C.J.,
concurring) (“[T]he [trial] court is in a much better position than an appellate court to resolve
whether [a] witness is inherently incredible.”).
We conclude the trial court’s finding is not clearly erroneous, and that its conclusion that
the recantation lacked circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness reflect a proper exercise of
discretion. Because Hunter-Moncree failed to provide corroborating evidence for the
recantation, we need not address the trial court’s additional determinations that the evidence was
cumulative and that there was not a reasonable probability of a different result.
Hunter-Moncree next argues that the trial court improperly analyzed the evidence
concerning Zamora as other-acts evidence instead of evidence of witness bias. However,
Hunter-Moncree’s brief fails to identify the particular legal claim for which he seeks relief, state
the governing legal standard, or develop an argument applying the standard to the relevant facts.

No. 2025AP1264-CR
6
We need not address arguments unsupported by legal authority or otherwise inadequately
briefed. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 647, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). We
therefore decline to further review this issue.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the order of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals