Bonney v. State
2011 WY 51
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Bonney was charged in 2008 with four counts of second degree sexual assault (sexual intrusion) and one count of third degree sexual assault (sexual contact) based on acts in 2000–2001 involving two eight-year-old victims; he was a minor at the time of the offenses.
- He entered a stipulated Rule 11 plea to two counts of second degree sexual assault, with dismissal of the remaining counts and an agreement to a consecutive sentence of 15–20 years, the second suspended to probation.
- Bonney was sentenced on February 26, 2009, to consecutive 15–20 years, with the second sentence suspended in favor of 15 years of supervised probation.
- He did not appeal his convictions or sentences at that time.
- Bonney filed a post-conviction relief petition in June 2009 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court denied relief.
- In 2010, Bonney filed a Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction; after a hearing, the district court denied relief, incorporating its post-conviction findings and emphasizing finality concerns and the plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 35(b) motion? | Bonney contends the court erred by misapplying the plea agreement and ignoring supporting information. | State argues the court properly exercised discretion, considering the motion and the record. | No abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeGarda-Cornelio v. State, 2009 WY 136 (Wy. 2009) (trial court broad sentencing-discretion standard)
- Hodgins v. State, 1 P.3d 1259 (Wyo. 2000) (deference to trial court's sentencing decisions)
- McFarlane v. State, 781 P.2d 931 (Wyo. 1989) (standard for sentence reductions)
- Mower v. State, 750 P.2d 679 (Wyo. 1988) (finality and sentencing principles)
- Fortin v. State, 622 P.2d 418 (Wyo. 1981) (sentencing considerations and discretion)
- Nixon v. State, 51 P.3d 851 (Wy. 2002) (finality and re-victimization concerns)
- Jones v. State, 203 P.3d 1091 (Wy. 2009) (rules governing Rule 11 proceedings and factual basis)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (U.S. 1991) (general principle on closing judicial proceedings)