[Cite as State v. Dyer, 2026-Ohio-2387.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-25-061
Appellee Trial Court No. 2022CR0291 v.
Davante Vasquez Dyer DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 23, 2026
***** Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecutor, and Kristofer A. Kristofferson, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
Samuel E. Gold, for appellant. *****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Davonte Vasquez Dyer, appeals the August 29, 2025
judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, which revoked his community
control and sentenced him to prison for his original domestic-violence conviction. For
the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment. I. Background
{¶ 2} Davonte Vasquez Dyer (“Vasquez”) was indicted on one count of domestic
violence, a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(4), a third-degree felony. A plea
agreement was reached with the State, pursuant to which Vasquez entered a plea of guilty
to the amended, reduced charge of domestic violence, a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and
(D)(3), a fourth-degree felony. The State agreed to recommend a sentence of community
control.
{¶ 3} The trial court accepted Vasquez’s plea, made a finding of guilty, ordered a
presentence investigation, and continued the matter for sentencing. At the sentencing
hearing, it accepted the State’s recommendation and imposed a three-year period of
community control, subject to numerous conditions, including, inter alia, that he (1) serve
a period of 90 days in the Wood County Justice Center (“WCJC”) and obey all rules and
regulations of the jail; (2) report to the Adult Probation Department within 72 hours of
his release from WCJC; (3) serve a period of 60 days in the Wood County Electronic
Home Monitoring Program and follow the program’s rules and regulations; (4) complete
assessments for chemical dependency/substance abuse treatment, mental health
counseling, and anger management counseling, and successfully complete any
recommended services; (5) abstain from alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs and submit
to random testing at the discretion of Adult Probation; and (6) obtain and maintain lawful
employment. The trial court cautioned Vasquez that a violation of community-control
sanctions could lead to a more restrictive sanction, a longer period of community control,
2. or a reserved prison term of six to 18 months. Vasquez’s sentence was memorialized in a
judgment journalized on December 20, 2022.
{¶ 4} Following imposition of this sentence, Vasquez was brought before the court
three times on violations of the conditions of community control.
{¶ 5} The first violation was documented on May 3, 2023. Vasquez had been
released from the WCJC on March 17, 2023, but did not report to Probation within 72
hours of his release, as was required under the December 20, 2022 judgment. At a
hearing on the State’s petition to revoke community control, Vasquez stipulated to the
violation. The trial court found Vasquez to have violated the terms of community
control. It continued Vasquez on community control with all current conditions, added
the condition of intensive supervision, and ordered Vasquez to immediately begin serving
the previously-ordered 60-day period of house arrest. The court reserved a prison term of
18 months.
{¶ 6} The second violation was documented on September 8, 2023. Vasquez had
failed to report for two office appointments with Probation and had not called for his
nightly curfew since August 29, 2023. At a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke
community control, Vasquez stipulated to the violation. The trial court found Vasquez to
have violated the terms of community control. It continued Vasquez on community
control with all current conditions, and it added the conditions that Vasquez enter into
and successfully complete the SEARCH program at Northwest Community Corrections
Center, follow all recommendations of aftercare, and report to Probation within 72 hours
of his release from SEARCH. The court reserved a prison term of 18 months.
3. {¶ 7} The third violation was documented on August 26, 2025. Vasquez had been
unsuccessfully terminated from the SEARCH program for “physical contact with intent
to harm or result in harm.” At a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke community
control, Vasquez stipulated that he had been removed from the program, but denied that
he had been in a physical altercation. The trial court found Vasquez to have violated the
terms of community control, and further found that the violation was non-technical.
After considering the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the
factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.12 and weighing the factors set forth in the applicable
provisions of R.C. 2929.13, 2929.14, 2929.15, and 2929.16, the court concluded that
Vasquez was no longer amenable to community-control sanctions and that a prison
sentence was consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court
ordered Vasquez to be confined to prison for a period of 18 months, with 168 days of jail-
time credit.
{¶ 8} Vasquez appealed. He assigns the following error for our review:
The Trial Court erred by revoking Appellant’s community control and imposing 18 months incarceration.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Vasquez argues that the trial court erred
when it revoked community control and imposed the reserved prison term. He maintains
that his community-control violations, though numerous, did not warrant prison, and the
trial court should have given further consideration to the rehabilitative principles and
purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11. Vasquez emphasizes that despite his
4. communication lapses with the probation department, he remained employed during
supervision and did not incur new criminal convictions. He distinguishes his violations
from other more “egregious” violations that courts have addressed in other violation
cases, such as where defendants had failed urine tests, incurred new charges, committed
intentional violations of protection orders, or misrepresented their employment status.
Vasquez insists that he was candid about his shortcomings, and he explains that his issues
stemmed from alcohol use. He asserts that his overall behavior showed that he was
amenable to community control. Vasquez asks that we find the revocation of community
control erroneous.
{¶ 10} The State responds that a sentence imposed after a stipulated community-
control violation is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G).
It argues that Vasquez’s assignment of error is not reviewable because R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) prohibits appellate courts from independently reweighing the R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 factors. It maintains that Ohio cases make clear that appellate
courts cannot substitute their judgment for the trial court as to which sentence best
complies with these statutes. The State points out that although the trial court was not
obligated to make findings or articulate reasons for imposing a prison term within the
statutory range, the court did so here. It contends that the only prerequisite for imposing
the sentence was that the trial court advise the defendant that a violation could result in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Dyer, 2026-Ohio-2387.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-25-061
Appellee Trial Court No. 2022CR0291 v.
Davante Vasquez Dyer DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 23, 2026
***** Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecutor, and Kristofer A. Kristofferson, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
Samuel E. Gold, for appellant. *****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Davonte Vasquez Dyer, appeals the August 29, 2025
judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, which revoked his community
control and sentenced him to prison for his original domestic-violence conviction. For
the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment. I. Background
{¶ 2} Davonte Vasquez Dyer (“Vasquez”) was indicted on one count of domestic
violence, a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(4), a third-degree felony. A plea
agreement was reached with the State, pursuant to which Vasquez entered a plea of guilty
to the amended, reduced charge of domestic violence, a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and
(D)(3), a fourth-degree felony. The State agreed to recommend a sentence of community
control.
{¶ 3} The trial court accepted Vasquez’s plea, made a finding of guilty, ordered a
presentence investigation, and continued the matter for sentencing. At the sentencing
hearing, it accepted the State’s recommendation and imposed a three-year period of
community control, subject to numerous conditions, including, inter alia, that he (1) serve
a period of 90 days in the Wood County Justice Center (“WCJC”) and obey all rules and
regulations of the jail; (2) report to the Adult Probation Department within 72 hours of
his release from WCJC; (3) serve a period of 60 days in the Wood County Electronic
Home Monitoring Program and follow the program’s rules and regulations; (4) complete
assessments for chemical dependency/substance abuse treatment, mental health
counseling, and anger management counseling, and successfully complete any
recommended services; (5) abstain from alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs and submit
to random testing at the discretion of Adult Probation; and (6) obtain and maintain lawful
employment. The trial court cautioned Vasquez that a violation of community-control
sanctions could lead to a more restrictive sanction, a longer period of community control,
2. or a reserved prison term of six to 18 months. Vasquez’s sentence was memorialized in a
judgment journalized on December 20, 2022.
{¶ 4} Following imposition of this sentence, Vasquez was brought before the court
three times on violations of the conditions of community control.
{¶ 5} The first violation was documented on May 3, 2023. Vasquez had been
released from the WCJC on March 17, 2023, but did not report to Probation within 72
hours of his release, as was required under the December 20, 2022 judgment. At a
hearing on the State’s petition to revoke community control, Vasquez stipulated to the
violation. The trial court found Vasquez to have violated the terms of community
control. It continued Vasquez on community control with all current conditions, added
the condition of intensive supervision, and ordered Vasquez to immediately begin serving
the previously-ordered 60-day period of house arrest. The court reserved a prison term of
18 months.
{¶ 6} The second violation was documented on September 8, 2023. Vasquez had
failed to report for two office appointments with Probation and had not called for his
nightly curfew since August 29, 2023. At a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke
community control, Vasquez stipulated to the violation. The trial court found Vasquez to
have violated the terms of community control. It continued Vasquez on community
control with all current conditions, and it added the conditions that Vasquez enter into
and successfully complete the SEARCH program at Northwest Community Corrections
Center, follow all recommendations of aftercare, and report to Probation within 72 hours
of his release from SEARCH. The court reserved a prison term of 18 months.
3. {¶ 7} The third violation was documented on August 26, 2025. Vasquez had been
unsuccessfully terminated from the SEARCH program for “physical contact with intent
to harm or result in harm.” At a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke community
control, Vasquez stipulated that he had been removed from the program, but denied that
he had been in a physical altercation. The trial court found Vasquez to have violated the
terms of community control, and further found that the violation was non-technical.
After considering the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the
factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.12 and weighing the factors set forth in the applicable
provisions of R.C. 2929.13, 2929.14, 2929.15, and 2929.16, the court concluded that
Vasquez was no longer amenable to community-control sanctions and that a prison
sentence was consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court
ordered Vasquez to be confined to prison for a period of 18 months, with 168 days of jail-
time credit.
{¶ 8} Vasquez appealed. He assigns the following error for our review:
The Trial Court erred by revoking Appellant’s community control and imposing 18 months incarceration.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Vasquez argues that the trial court erred
when it revoked community control and imposed the reserved prison term. He maintains
that his community-control violations, though numerous, did not warrant prison, and the
trial court should have given further consideration to the rehabilitative principles and
purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11. Vasquez emphasizes that despite his
4. communication lapses with the probation department, he remained employed during
supervision and did not incur new criminal convictions. He distinguishes his violations
from other more “egregious” violations that courts have addressed in other violation
cases, such as where defendants had failed urine tests, incurred new charges, committed
intentional violations of protection orders, or misrepresented their employment status.
Vasquez insists that he was candid about his shortcomings, and he explains that his issues
stemmed from alcohol use. He asserts that his overall behavior showed that he was
amenable to community control. Vasquez asks that we find the revocation of community
control erroneous.
{¶ 10} The State responds that a sentence imposed after a stipulated community-
control violation is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G).
It argues that Vasquez’s assignment of error is not reviewable because R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) prohibits appellate courts from independently reweighing the R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 factors. It maintains that Ohio cases make clear that appellate
courts cannot substitute their judgment for the trial court as to which sentence best
complies with these statutes. The State points out that although the trial court was not
obligated to make findings or articulate reasons for imposing a prison term within the
statutory range, the court did so here. It contends that the only prerequisite for imposing
the sentence was that the trial court advise the defendant that a violation could result in
imposition of the reserved term, which the court did here.
{¶ 11} Vasquez’s assignment of error suggests that he is challenging both the
revocation of community control and the 18-month prison term that was imposed, but his
5. argument is focused solely on the trial court’s decision to revoke community control.
“The right to continue on community control depends on a defendant’s compliance with
community control conditions and is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the
trial court.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Schreiber, 2019-Ohio-2963, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.).
We review a trial court’s decision to revoke a community-control sanction for an abuse of
that discretion. State v. Calhoun, 2019-Ohio-228, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). An abuse of
discretion connotes that the trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). An
unreasonable decision is one that lacks sound reasoning to support the decision.
Hageman v. Bryan City Schools, 2019-Ohio-223, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). “An arbitrary
decision is one that lacks adequate determining principle and is not governed by any
fixed rules or standard.” Id., quoting Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP v. Frutta del
Mondo, Ltd., 2008-Ohio-3567, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.). And an unconscionable decision is one
“that affronts the sense of justice, decency, or reasonableness.” Id.
{¶ 12} Under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) and (3), if an offender violates the conditions of
a community-control sanction, the court may impose a longer period of community
control, a more restrictive community-control sanction, or a prison term within the range
available for the underlying offense up to the maximum term specified at the original
sentencing hearing. See also Calhoun at ¶ 18. Generally speaking, a trial court holds a
“great deal of discretion” to fashion a sentence after finding that an offender has violated
the conditions of community control. Id.
6. {¶ 13} Here, Vasquez committed three community-control violations. He failed to
report to Adult Probation after his release from prison, missed appointments with
Probation and neglected to call in for his nightly curfew, and was unsuccessfully
terminated from SEARCH due to a physical altercation. After each of the first two
violations, the trial court cautioned Vasquez that additional violations could result in the
imposition of the reserved prison term. Despite these warnings, Vasquez violated again.
We decline to engage in a comparative analysis of whether Vasquez’s violations were
more or less “egregious” than other offenders’. Vasquez repeatedly evaded the Probation
Department, then engaged in behavior that caused him to be terminated from the program
meant to address the very problem that Vasquez claims led to his criminal behavior. The
trial court was not obligated to give Vasquez unlimited opportunities to demonstrate that
he was amenable to community control—allowing him three chances was generous.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked
community control and imposed the reserved sentence.
{¶ 14} We find Vasquez’s assignment of error not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked community
control and imposed the reserved sentence after Vasquez committed three separate
community-control violations. After each of the first two violations, the court cautioned
that additional violations could result in imposition of the reserved prison term. The trial
court was not obligated to give Vasquez unlimited opportunities to demonstrate his
7. amenability to community control. We find Vasquez’s assignment of error not well-
taken.
{¶ 16} We affirm the August 29, 2025 judgment of the Wood County Court of
Common Pleas. Vasquez is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, J. CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
8.