Michael Gene Bodine v. Commonwealth
This text of Michael Gene Bodine v. Commonwealth (Michael Gene Bodine v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge McClanahan and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick Argued at Richmond, Virginia
MICHAEL GENE BODINE MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 0779-05-2 CHIEF JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR. NOVEMBER 7, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Bradley B. Cavedo, Judge
Christopher C. Booberg (Michael Morchower, on brief), for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Michael Gene Bodine (“appellant”) appeals his convictions for twenty-four counts of
possession of child pornography in violation of Code § 18.2-374.1:1. Appellant was sentenced
to a total of twenty-four months imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that his prosecution
violated his constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 4, 2003, police interviewed appellant’s roommate regarding child
pornography he found on appellant’s computer. On September 9, 2003, based on the
roommate’s affidavit, police executed a search warrant at appellant’s residence. The search
resulted in discovery of four hard drives, multiple zip disks, and multiple 3.5-inch diskettes that
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. contained images of child pornography. The trial court found the evidence presented at trial
sufficient to support appellant’s convictions.
ANALYSIS
Although appellant argued in his brief and during oral argument that the evidence was not
sufficient to support his convictions, we did not grant that question on appeal. We will only
consider “those arguments presented in the petition for appeal and granted by this Court.” Parker
v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 358, 373, 592 S.E.2d 358, 366 (2004) (citing Rule 5A:12). The
sole question on which we granted an appeal is whether appellant’s prosecution under Code
§ 18.2-374.1:1 violated his “constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment.”
On July 6, 2004, appellant was indicted for felony possession of child pornography in
violation of Code § 18.2-374.1:1. Previously, on July 1, 2003, the General Assembly increased
the penalty for possession of child pornography from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony.
2003 Va. Acts, chs. 935, 938. In order to convict appellant of possession of child pornography,
the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “knowingly
possesse[d] any sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less
than 18 years.” Code § 18.2-374.1:1. Appellant contends that the material he was found guilty
of possessing was either created or last accessed in December 2000, at a time when possession of
child pornography was a Class 1 misdemeanor.
An ex post facto law has been defined as:
any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed.
Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 (1990) (citations omitted). “‘The mark of an ex post
facto law is the imposition of what can fairly be designated punishment for past acts.’” Dodson
-2- v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 286, 294, 476 S.E.2d 512, 516 (1996) (quoting De Veau v.
Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 160 (1960)). While “[t]he United States Constitution, article 1, § 10, and
the Virginia Constitution, article 1, § 9, prohibit the Commonwealth from enacting ex post facto
laws,” Kitze v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 213, 216, 475 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1996) (citations
omitted), we find no ex post facto violation on the record before us. Appellant was indicted for
possession of child pornography on September 9, 2003, two months after possession of child
pornography became a felony under Code § 18.2-374.1:1. The Commonwealth met its burden of
establishing that on September 9, 2003, appellant was aware of and knowingly possessed child
pornographic materials on his computer and accessories, and we earlier affirmed that finding.
Bodine v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0779-05-2 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2005, April 6, 2006).
The mere fact that some of appellant’s acts proving his possession in September 2003 occurred
before the change in the law does not preclude application of the new law. See Dodson, 23
Va. App. at 295, 476 S.E.2d at 516 (holding that Code § 18.2-308.2 was not an unconstitutional
ex post facto law in that prosecution).
The trial court found that appellant continued to possess the child pornographic images at
the time of his arrest, notwithstanding the date the images were originally downloaded.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions for possession of child pornography.
Affirmed.
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Gene Bodine v. Commonwealth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-gene-bodine-v-commonwealth-vactapp-2006.