State v. Bodnar

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Bodnar, 2011-Ohio-186.] COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- JOSEPH F. BODNAR : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Julie A. Edwards, P.J. W. Scott Gwin, J. John W. Wise, J. Case No. 10-COA-011 OPINION Defendant-Appellant CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from Ashland County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 09-CRI-097 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 14, 2011 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant RAMONA FRANCESCONI ROGERS Ashland County Prosecutor 110 Cottage Street, Third Floor Ashland, Ohio 44805 DOUGLAS A. MILHOAN P.O. Box 347 Middlebranch, Ohio 44652 PAUL T. LANGE Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 110 Cottage Street, Third Floor Ashland, Ohio 44805 [Cite as State v. Bodnar, 2011-Ohio-186.] Edwards, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Joseph F. Bodnar, appeals a judgment of the Ashland County Common Pleas Court convicting him of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) upon a plea of guilty and sentencing him to ten years incarceration. Appellee is the State of Ohio. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE {¶2} In September of 2009, the mother of the victim reported to police that her nine-year-old son had been sexually molested by appellant. Appellant is an older cousin of the victim and often babysat the child. Appellant wrote to the victim s mother apologizing for mistreating her son. During a controlled phone call, appellant admitted to his probation officer that he had been sexually molesting the victim since the victim was about six years old. {¶3} Appellant was charged by bill of information with one count of rape, specifically engaging in fellatio with the victim. On January 19, 2010, he entered a plea of guilty. A pre-sentence investigation was ordered, and following a sentencing hearing on March 1, 2010, appellant was sentenced to ten years incarceration. He assigns a single error on appeal: {¶4} THE IMPOSITION OF A PRISON SENTENCE IN THIS CASE IMPOSES AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN ON STATE RESOURCES. I {¶5} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, argues that his ten year jail sentence imposes an unnecessary burden on state resources in contravention of R.C. 2929.13(A). We disagree. Ashland County App. Case No. 10-COA-011 {¶6} 3 R.C. 2929.13 governs sentencing guidelines for various specific offenses and degrees of offenses. Subsection (A) states as follows in pertinent part: {¶7} Except as provided in division (E), (F), or (G) of this section and unless a specific sanction is required to be imposed or is precluded from being imposed pursuant to law, a court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a felony may impose any sanction or combination of sanctions on the offender that are provided in sections 2929.14 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code. The sentence shall not impose an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources. {¶8} As we noted in State v. Ferenbaugh, Ashland App. No. 03COA038, 2004- Ohio-977 at paragraph 7, [t]he very language of the cited statute grants trial courts discretion to impose sentences. Nowhere within the statute is there any guideline for what an unnecessary burden is. Moreover, in State v. Shull, Ashland App. No. 2008COA-036, 2009-Ohio-3105, this Court reviewed a similar claim. We found that although burdens on State resources may be a relevant sentencing criteria as set forth in R.C. 2929.13, state law does not require trial courts to elevate resource conservation above seriousness and recidivism factors, Shull, at paragraph 22, citing State v. Ober (October 10, 1997), Greene App. No. 97CA0019, 1997 WL 624811. {¶9} Appellant argues that he accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty. He argues that he is a below-average functioning twenty-year-old with no prior felony convictions and no prior sex offense convictions. {¶10} However, the record reflects that appellant was in a position of trust with the young male victim because he was a relative who also babysat the young boy. Beginning when the boy was around six and ending when the boy was around nine, Ashland County App. Case No. 10-COA-011 4 appellant engaged in fellatio with the child. Appellant was on probation for a drug offense at the time of the crime. The court was particularly concerned with appellant s likelihood to reoffend for several reasons. First, appellant had a history of substance abuse and made statements about being under the influence when he was committing the crime. Tr. 12. The court further noted that appellant stated that while engaging in sexual conduct with the boy, he was visualizing that he was having sex with an adult. Tr. 13. The court was concerned about the possibility of re-offending because the court believed appellant did not recognize the little boy as a human being, but as someone else in his imagination. Tr. 13. The court believed appellant did not have compassion for the child he was harming which created a great concern about his likelihood to reoffend. Tr. 14. The court further stated that while appellant claimed he was sorry, the court believed appellant was more sorry for his current situation and what it brought on him than he was sorry about the harm he had caused to the child. Tr. 14. Ashland County App. Case No. 10-COA-011 5 {¶11} We find no evidence to support appellant s claim that the sentence in this case constitutes and unnecessary burden on state resources. The assignment of error is overruled. {¶12} The judgment of the Ashland County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. By: Edwards, P.J. Gwin, J. and Wise, J. concur ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ JUDGES JAE/r1001 [Cite as State v. Bodnar, 2011-Ohio-186.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsJOSEPH F. BODNAR Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 10-COA-011 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant. _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ JUDGES

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.