The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court's decision regarding the sentencing of William J. Bonney, who was convicted of first-degree sexual assault causing pregnancy. This ruling, issued on November 5, 2026, is significant as it highlights the importance of proper legal procedures in sentencing and the consideration of new evidence in postconviction motions.

Bonney's case has drawn attention due to the serious nature of the crime and the complexities surrounding his mental health evaluations. The ruling affects Bonney directly, as it allows for a new sentencing hearing that could potentially alter the terms of his imprisonment.

Background

William J. Bonney was convicted in 2016 for first-degree sexual assault after it was revealed that he had sexually abused his daughter, resulting in her pregnancy. The charge of incest was dismissed but noted during sentencing. Bonney admitted to the abuse starting when his daughter was just 14 years old, with the crime coming to light through paternity testing after the child was born.

At the time of his original sentencing, the prosecution recommended a lengthy prison term of 25 years of initial confinement and 20 years of extended supervision, emphasizing the severity of the crime. The defense, however, argued for a lighter sentence, citing mitigating factors such as Bonney's limited intellectual functioning. The court ultimately sentenced Bonney to 20 years of initial confinement followed by 10 years of extended supervision.

In September 2024, Bonney sought to have his sentence modified or to be resentenced based on a new psychological evaluation from Dr. LaToya Williams. This evaluation contradicted an earlier assessment by Dr. Jerry Roherty, suggesting that Bonney did not have the antisocial personality disorder initially diagnosed. Instead, Williams proposed that Bonney had borderline intellectual functioning and major depressive disorder.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court had erred in its handling of Bonney's postconviction motion for resentencing. The court noted that while the lower court had conducted a resentencing hearing, it mistakenly left the original sentence intact instead of vacating it as required. The appellate court stated, "the original sentence should have been vacated before resentencing occurred," emphasizing that the initial sentence ceases to exist once a resentencing is ordered.

The judges acknowledged that the circuit court had properly considered the new psychological evaluation during the resentencing hearing but ultimately concluded that the seriousness of the offense warranted the same sentence. The court stated, "the nature of [Bonney’s] offense and the impact on the victim" justified the original sentence length. However, the appellate court found that the lower court's failure to vacate the original sentence was a critical error.

As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the order denying Bonney's postconviction motion and remanded the case with directions to vacate the original sentence, grant the motion for resentencing, and issue an amended judgment of conviction.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Bonney and similar cases involving postconviction motions. It underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures during sentencing and the necessity of considering new evidence that may emerge after a conviction. The decision may also set a precedent for how courts handle resentencing in cases where new psychological evaluations challenge previous assessments.

Furthermore, the ruling could affect how future cases involving sexual assault and similar charges are approached, particularly in terms of mental health evaluations and their impact on sentencing. It highlights the court's responsibility to ensure that all relevant information is taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence.

What's Next

Following this ruling, Bonney's case will return to the lower court for a new sentencing hearing. The State has the option to appeal this decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, although details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of the new sentencing hearing will determine Bonney's final sentence.