People v. Bodner CA3

Filed 11/16/21 P. v. Bodner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092596

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE001665)

v.

DUSTIN BODNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dustin Bodner asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

1

BACKGROUND1 Defendant and the victim were married in 2009. By early 2018, they were going through a divorce. The day before the incident, defendant discovered the victim was dating someone else; he spent the day drinking. That evening, the victim spent the night in the spare bedroom, while defendant slept in the master bedroom. Around 3:00 a.m., the victim woke to see defendant standing naked in her doorway. The victim said she did not want him to touch her. Defendant, nevertheless, forcibly had sex with her, including placing his penis in her vagina and sticking his finger in her anus. He also bit, slapped, and hit the victim, and threatened to kill her and her family if she did not complete those acts of intercourse. Defendant was charged with multiple counts, but during jury selection the parties reached a plea agreement. As the prosecutor explained, defendant would plead no contest to count three, spousal rape (Pen. Code, § 262, subd. (a)(1)),2 and count five, penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)), and would receive the eight-year upper term on each, served fully consecutively. Defendant thereafter pleaded no contest to those charges. Before sentencing, defendant brought a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, which the trial court denied. Defendant thereafter asked to represent himself. He also told the court, “I Dustin Bodner, do hereby respectfully