State v. Wodarski
2022 Ohio 1428
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Dana Wodarski was indicted on multiple counts and pleaded guilty to three fifth-degree felonies (unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, identity fraud, receiving stolen property) and an OVI first-degree misdemeanor.
- On May 3, 2019 the trial court imposed consecutive nine‑month prison terms for the felonies and a 180‑day term for the misdemeanor, suspended those terms, and placed Wodarski on three years of community control.
- After prior community control proceedings, Wodarski admitted a subsequent technical violation of community control.
- On August 31, 2021 the court revoked community control and imposed 90 days incarceration for each felony count, ordered to run consecutively for a total of 270 days.
- Wodarski appealed, arguing R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) limits total incarceration for technical violations of fifth‑degree felony community control to 90 days irrespective of the number of underlying felonies.
- The Sixth District affirmed, holding the sentence was not contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Wodarski's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) caps total incarceration for technical violations of community control at 90 days regardless of number of underlying fifth‑degree felonies | Statute limits total prison for technical violations to 90 days overall, so consecutive 90‑day terms totaling 270 days violate the statute | The 90‑day cap applies per felony count; the court may impose consecutive 90‑day terms (with proper findings under R.C. 2929.14) | The appellate court held the 90‑day limitation applies to each felony count and consecutive sentences are not precluded; the sentence was within the statutory scheme and not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler, 661 N.E.2d 1049 (Ohio 1996) (statutory words given their usual meaning)
- State v. Jordan, 733 N.E.2d 601 (Ohio 2000) (criminal statutes construed narrowly against the state and in favor of the accused)
- State v. D.B., 82 N.E.3d 1162 (Ohio 2017) (singular/plural statutory forms interpreted under R.C. 1.43)
- State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider each offense separately and impose separate sentences)
- State v. Bishop, 132 N.E.3d 145 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019) (rejecting a narrow reading of singular ‘‘a felony’’ to limit application of R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i))