In the murder case of Pastor William “Bill” Schonemann, the court signaled that even an accused killer asking for execution must move through Arizona’s required capital steps.
PHOENIX, Ariz. — A Maricopa County judge declined to let Adam Sheafe leap directly toward sentencing in the killing of New River pastor William “Bill” Schonemann, highlighting the legal brakes that remain in place even when a defendant says he wants to plead guilty and be put to death.
The central question now is procedural, not rhetorical. Sheafe has said in open court that he killed Schonemann, that he sees aggravating factors in the case and that he wants closure through a death sentence. But the court’s role is not to ratify urgency. It is to test whether a plea is voluntary, whether the defendant understands the consequences, whether the rights tied to a capital trial are being handled lawfully and whether the sentencing path complies with Arizona rules. That is why the most dramatic statement in the room did not become the day’s final ruling.
At the March 12 hearing, Sheafe, 51, appeared while representing himself with advisory counsel nearby. He first sought to plead no contest, a move prosecutors opposed. He then said he would plead guilty to all counts if that would move the case ahead and allow sentencing by a judge rather than a jury. In arguing for speed, he said the victim’s age and the nature of the crime made the aggravating picture obvious. He also insisted he had confessed long ago and had never contested responsibility. His remarks were blunt and aimed at stripping the case down to punishment alone. The judge did not accept that premise. She set another hearing for April 24 instead.
The refusal mattered because prosecutors are not handling an ordinary homicide. The state has charged Sheafe in the death of 76-year-old Schonemann, whose body was found April 28, 2025, in his New River home by two members of his congregation who had gone to check on him. Prosecutors later said the body had been positioned with the arms outstretched, similar to a crucifixion. A grand jury indictment announced in July 2025 included first-degree murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, burglary, kidnapping, theft of means of transportation and criminal trespass. Prosecutors also alleged the killing was part of a broader plan to target 14 Christian leaders around the country. Those allegations help explain why the state proceeded toward a capital prosecution rather than a narrower case.
By October 2025, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office had formally filed notice of intent to seek the death penalty. That filing changed the legal posture of the case. Once death is on the table, issues that might otherwise be routine become exacting. Courts look closely at plea decisions, waiver of counsel, waiver of jury rights and the handling of aggravating and mitigating factors. Legal observers following the case have noted that a defendant cannot simply volunteer for execution and make the system obey on command. The process exists partly to protect the legitimacy of any final judgment, especially in a case likely to be reviewed in detail if a death sentence is ever imposed.
The facts underlying the prosecution remain severe and politically charged enough on their own. Authorities said detectives tied Sheafe to the killing through evidence from Schonemann’s home, a Cave Creek burglary, a stolen pickup truck and items recovered from a backpack and that vehicle. The county attorney’s office said Sheafe was also accused of burglary in Cave Creek two days before the pastor’s body was found and then linked to crimes in Sedona before his capture. Yet for all the lurid facts and public statements, the court’s present posture is restrained. It is focused less on what Sheafe says he deserves than on what the law requires before the state can impose its harshest penalty.
That is the tension likely to define the next phase. Sheafe is pushing for finality. Prosecutors are seeking death. The judge is insisting on order. For the victim’s family, the congregation at New River Bible Chapel and the broader public watching the case, that means a prosecution that may feel both unusually dramatic and deliberately slow. The slowness is not a side issue. It is the system operating as designed when the stakes are life, death and the integrity of the verdict.
For now, the immediate outcome is narrow but important: the court did not collapse the case into instant sentencing, and the next hearing remains set for April 24. In a prosecution built around shocking allegations, the latest development was a reminder that procedure can be the most powerful force in the room.
Author note: Last updated April 7, 2026.