Darrell Brooks’ appeal of his Waukesha Christmas parade convictions remains stuck in its earliest procedural stages more than three years after his sentencing, with Brooks representing himself and fighting to keep the case alive after multiple extension requests were denied. As of early 2026, no formal appellate brief has been filed, and the immediate legal battle is over whether he will get more time to file one at all.
Where Things Stand in Early 2026
Brooks filed his notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief on November 29, 2022, shortly after being sentenced to six consecutive life terms without parole plus hundreds of additional years on the remaining counts. The Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office appointed attorney Michael Covey to handle the appeal. Covey worked the case for roughly two years before Brooks asked him to withdraw so that he could represent himself. Covey formally requested removal from the case in paperwork filed on February 14, 2025.
Since then, Brooks and his former attorney have filed at least 11 requests to extend the deadline for filing the appeal. In January 2026, Judge Lisa Neubauer denied Brooks’ latest extension request, finding he failed to show good cause. Brooks responded with a motion asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider that denial. He has also challenged statements by Wisconsin and South Dakota prison authorities who said he never asked for access to his case file. A state response to his reconsideration motion was due by March 16, 2026.
The stakes on these procedural motions are higher than they might appear. Appellate deadlines in Wisconsin are strict. If Brooks cannot convince the court to grant more time and misses the window to file, he risks forfeiting his direct appeal entirely, which would leave him only the narrower routes of discretionary state supreme court review and eventual federal habeas corpus.
Why He’s Representing Himself Again
Brooks represented himself at trial without standby counsel, and he has chosen to do the same on appeal. That decision is what triggered Covey’s withdrawal and what has driven much of the delay: a self-represented defendant serving multiple life sentences is handling his own filings, deadline management, and record access from prison.
The right to reject counsel is protected. The Supreme Court held in Faretta v. California that a defendant may represent himself as long as the choice is made voluntarily and intelligently.1Justia. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) But the practical consequences show up in cases like this one, where a defendant without legal training must navigate rules that punish missed deadlines and unpreserved objections.
The Likely Grounds for Appeal
If Brooks clears the procedural hurdles and files a substantive brief, several arguments are available to him based on what happened at trial.
The Self-Representation Waiver
The most closely watched question is whether Brooks’ waiver of counsel was valid. A valid waiver requires the trial court to confirm that the defendant understands the charges, the potential penalties, and the specific disadvantages of proceeding without a lawyer. The defendant does not need to demonstrate legal skill, but must show a rational understanding of what he is giving up. The appellate court will review the record of Judge Jennifer Dorow’s colloquy with Brooks to decide whether it met that standard.
The Refusal to Appoint Standby Counsel
What makes this case unusual is that Judge Dorow explicitly declined to appoint standby counsel. In most high-profile cases where defendants represent themselves, a standby attorney sits in the courtroom to assist with procedural questions and step in if the defendant becomes unable to continue. Dorow told Brooks that no attorney would be appointed in any advisory capacity if he chose to represent himself. There is no constitutional requirement that standby counsel be appointed, so this argument faces headwinds, but the appellate court can still consider whether the decision affected the fairness of the trial.
Removals from the Courtroom
Brooks was removed from the courtroom multiple times during both jury selection and the trial itself. On the first day of trial, Judge Dorow had him removed within minutes after he repeatedly interrupted proceedings. He was allowed to observe from a separate room via video feed before eventually returning after lunch. A defendant representing himself who is physically excluded from the courtroom faces obvious obstacles in presenting a defense, and the appellate court will need to evaluate whether each removal was justified by Brooks’ conduct and whether adequate alternative arrangements were made.
The Sentence
Wisconsin law gives trial courts broad discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences, but that discretion is not unlimited.2Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 973.15 – Sentence, Terms, Escapes Under State v. Gallion, the sentencing court must identify its objectives on the record and explain how the specific sentence advances them.3Wisconsin Court System. State v. Curtis E. Gallion Brooks could argue the trial court failed to adequately explain why it ran every count consecutively. He could also raise an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge under Solem v. Helm.4Justia. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) Both arguments face steep odds when the sentence reflects six separate homicide convictions for six separate victims. First-degree intentional homicide is a Class A felony in Wisconsin, the most serious classification.5Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 940.01 – First-Degree Intentional Homicide
How Hard Each Argument Is to Win
Not every claim gets the same scrutiny on appeal, and the standard of review often decides the outcome before the merits are reached.
Pure legal questions, including whether a constitutional right was violated, get de novo review. The appellate court decides the issue from scratch without deferring to the trial judge. The self-representation and Sixth Amendment arguments fall here, which is the most favorable posture for Brooks.
Evidentiary rulings and sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The appellate court asks only whether the ruling was unreasonable, not whether it was the best possible decision. This is a difficult standard to meet.
A further problem for Brooks is preservation. When a defendant fails to object at the time a ruling is made, the issue is generally forfeited on appeal. The only escape is plain error: an obvious mistake so serious that it undermined the fairness of the entire proceeding. Because Brooks represented himself, many rulings likely went unchallenged in the moment.
The one category that could cut in his favor is structural error. Most errors are evaluated for harmlessness, but a narrow set of errors require automatic reversal because they infect the entire proceeding. Denial of the right to counsel entirely is structural. If the appellate court found that Brooks’ waiver of counsel was defective, or that his repeated removals amounted to a denial of the right to be present, those findings could qualify as structural errors that do not require proof of harm to the outcome.
What Comes After the Court of Appeals
If the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rules against Brooks, his next option is to petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review. That review is discretionary, and most petitions are denied.6Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 809.62 – Rule (Petition for Review) The court typically accepts cases that present significant legal questions or conflicts in the law.
After exhausting state court review, Brooks could file a federal habeas corpus petition in U.S. District Court. Federal law requires a state prisoner to use all available state court remedies first.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 2254 – State Custody; Remedies in Federal Courts Federal habeas is not a do-over of the trial. Relief is available only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, or was based on an unreasonable reading of the facts. State court factual findings are presumed correct, and the petitioner must rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
A strict one-year deadline applies, running from the date the state court judgment becomes final.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 2244 – Finality of Determination Time spent on properly filed state post-conviction motions pauses the clock but does not reset it.
Given the number of extensions already filed, the size of a trial record covering 76 counts, and the ordinary pace of appellate review in cases of this magnitude, a final resolution is likely years away.