[Cite as State v. Layne, 2026-Ohio-2741.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-31 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CR 023 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas DAVID CHRISTOPHER LAYNE : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on July 17, 2026, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
send a copy of the court’s ruling to each party and note that action on the docket.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur. OPINION CHAMPAIGN C.A. No. 2025-CA-31
HOLLY M. SIMPSON, Attorney for Appellant JANE A. NAPIER, Attorney for Appellee
EPLEY, J.
{¶ 1} David Layne appeals from the Champaign County Common Pleas Court’s
judgment revoking his community control and imposing consecutive prison sentences.
Layne asserts that the trial court’s sentence of two consecutive twelve-month prison terms
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and was unsupported by the record. For the
following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On February 6, 2023, Layne was indicted on two counts of assault, two counts
of obstructing official business, and one count of harassment with a bodily substance. On
July 13, 2023, after reaching an agreement with the State, Layne pled guilty to two counts
of obstructing official business, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court
sentenced Layne to a period of two years of community control.
{¶ 3} On October 15, 2024, Layne’s probation officer notified the trial court that Layne
had violated the terms of his community control by failing to notify his probation officer of his
address change, consuming alcohol, and failing to complete court-ordered treatment
programs. After a hearing on Layne’s alleged community control violations, the trial court
ordered that Layne remain on community control but extended his term of community control
for an additional three years. The trial court also ordered that he complete a residential
treatment program.
2 {¶ 4} On November 7, 2025, another notice of community control violations was filed,
informing the trial court that Layne had failed to successfully complete the court-ordered
treatment program and had used methamphetamine and marijuana. At a November 24,
2025 hearing, Layne admitted to the violations. The trial court revoked Layne’s community
control and imposed a sentence of two consecutive twelve-month prison terms. Layne now
appeals that sentence, raising one assignment of error.
II. Review of Layne’s Sentence
{¶ 5} In his assignment of error, Layne first argues that his sentence violates the
Eighth Amendment, because it is disproportionate to the offenses at issue. Further, Layne
asserts that the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of the maximum
consecutive sentence for his convictions.
A. Layne’s Sentence Does Not Violate the Eighth Amendment
{¶ 6} With respect to Layne’s contention that this sentence constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, we have held that such violations
are rare and pertain to sentences that would shock any reasonable person. State v.
Mayberry, 2014-Ohio-4706, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.). Additionally, “we are bound to give substantial
deference to the General Assembly, which has established a specific range of punishment
for every offense and authorized consecutive sentences for multiple offenses.” State v.
Hairston, 2008-Ohio-2338, ¶ 24.
{¶ 7} Layne acknowledges that the maximum sentence he could have received for
violating his community control was a term of 24 months in prison, which is the sentence
imposed by the trial court. Layne further admits that “his own actions led to the probation
violations.” He appears to argue that because this case has been “looming over his entire
life for more than two years,” he has suffered cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally,
3 Layne asserts that complying with the terms of his community control has been challenging
for him, because he has been navigating mental health issues. However, the trial court’s
sentence falls within the statutory range, and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate
that this sentence would be shocking to a reasonable person. Therefore, Layne’s sentence
does not violate his rights under the Eighth Amendment and does not constitute cruel and
unusual punishment.
B. Layne’s Sentence is Supported by the Record
{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “an appellate court may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify consecutive sentences only if the record does not ‘clearly and convincingly’
support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851,
¶ 13. “Therefore, an appellate court is directed that it must have a firm belief or conviction
that the record does not support the trial court’s findings before it may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify consecutive sentences,” and it cannot conduct a de novo review. Id. at
¶ 15-16.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states that a trial court may require an offender to serve
multiple prison terms consecutively if the court finds that “consecutive service is necessary
to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the
danger the offender poses to the public.” Additionally, the court must find any of the
following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the
offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction
imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, 2929.18 of the Revised
Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense;
4 (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or
more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the
multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single
prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the
courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct;
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
{¶ 10} When sentencing Layne to consecutive prison terms, the trial court specifically
found that consecutive service was necessary to protect the public and such service was
not disproportionate to the seriousness of Layne’s conduct or the danger he posed to the
public. The trial court noted that, while on community control, Layne “repeatedly tested
positive for methamphetamine,” “continued to incur convictions for anti-social and
obstructionist decision making,” and “continued to use felony drugs of abuse.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Layne, 2026-Ohio-2741.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-31 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CR 023 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas DAVID CHRISTOPHER LAYNE : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on July 17, 2026, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
send a copy of the court’s ruling to each party and note that action on the docket.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur. OPINION CHAMPAIGN C.A. No. 2025-CA-31
HOLLY M. SIMPSON, Attorney for Appellant JANE A. NAPIER, Attorney for Appellee
EPLEY, J.
{¶ 1} David Layne appeals from the Champaign County Common Pleas Court’s
judgment revoking his community control and imposing consecutive prison sentences.
Layne asserts that the trial court’s sentence of two consecutive twelve-month prison terms
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and was unsupported by the record. For the
following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On February 6, 2023, Layne was indicted on two counts of assault, two counts
of obstructing official business, and one count of harassment with a bodily substance. On
July 13, 2023, after reaching an agreement with the State, Layne pled guilty to two counts
of obstructing official business, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court
sentenced Layne to a period of two years of community control.
{¶ 3} On October 15, 2024, Layne’s probation officer notified the trial court that Layne
had violated the terms of his community control by failing to notify his probation officer of his
address change, consuming alcohol, and failing to complete court-ordered treatment
programs. After a hearing on Layne’s alleged community control violations, the trial court
ordered that Layne remain on community control but extended his term of community control
for an additional three years. The trial court also ordered that he complete a residential
treatment program.
2 {¶ 4} On November 7, 2025, another notice of community control violations was filed,
informing the trial court that Layne had failed to successfully complete the court-ordered
treatment program and had used methamphetamine and marijuana. At a November 24,
2025 hearing, Layne admitted to the violations. The trial court revoked Layne’s community
control and imposed a sentence of two consecutive twelve-month prison terms. Layne now
appeals that sentence, raising one assignment of error.
II. Review of Layne’s Sentence
{¶ 5} In his assignment of error, Layne first argues that his sentence violates the
Eighth Amendment, because it is disproportionate to the offenses at issue. Further, Layne
asserts that the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of the maximum
consecutive sentence for his convictions.
A. Layne’s Sentence Does Not Violate the Eighth Amendment
{¶ 6} With respect to Layne’s contention that this sentence constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, we have held that such violations
are rare and pertain to sentences that would shock any reasonable person. State v.
Mayberry, 2014-Ohio-4706, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.). Additionally, “we are bound to give substantial
deference to the General Assembly, which has established a specific range of punishment
for every offense and authorized consecutive sentences for multiple offenses.” State v.
Hairston, 2008-Ohio-2338, ¶ 24.
{¶ 7} Layne acknowledges that the maximum sentence he could have received for
violating his community control was a term of 24 months in prison, which is the sentence
imposed by the trial court. Layne further admits that “his own actions led to the probation
violations.” He appears to argue that because this case has been “looming over his entire
life for more than two years,” he has suffered cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally,
3 Layne asserts that complying with the terms of his community control has been challenging
for him, because he has been navigating mental health issues. However, the trial court’s
sentence falls within the statutory range, and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate
that this sentence would be shocking to a reasonable person. Therefore, Layne’s sentence
does not violate his rights under the Eighth Amendment and does not constitute cruel and
unusual punishment.
B. Layne’s Sentence is Supported by the Record
{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “an appellate court may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify consecutive sentences only if the record does not ‘clearly and convincingly’
support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851,
¶ 13. “Therefore, an appellate court is directed that it must have a firm belief or conviction
that the record does not support the trial court’s findings before it may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify consecutive sentences,” and it cannot conduct a de novo review. Id. at
¶ 15-16.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states that a trial court may require an offender to serve
multiple prison terms consecutively if the court finds that “consecutive service is necessary
to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the
danger the offender poses to the public.” Additionally, the court must find any of the
following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the
offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction
imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, 2929.18 of the Revised
Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense;
4 (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or
more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the
multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single
prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the
courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct;
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
{¶ 10} When sentencing Layne to consecutive prison terms, the trial court specifically
found that consecutive service was necessary to protect the public and such service was
not disproportionate to the seriousness of Layne’s conduct or the danger he posed to the
public. The trial court noted that, while on community control, Layne “repeatedly tested
positive for methamphetamine,” “continued to incur convictions for anti-social and
obstructionist decision making,” and “continued to use felony drugs of abuse.”
{¶ 11} Layne committed the violations at issue while on community control, and the
trial court found that his criminal history necessitated the imposition of consecutive
sentences to protect the public. The trial court cited Layne’s failure to complete the treatment
programs it ordered, as well as the fact that Layne repeatedly failed to respond favorably to
“second chance” opportunities granted by the court. In support of these findings, the trial
court referenced Layne’s admitted inability to stop using marijuana and Layne’s conduct at
the court-ordered residential treatment facility, which included “outbursts, failure to attend
counseling sessions, multiple behavioral contract violations, and a missed drug screen.”
5 {¶ 12} Additionally, the trial court had previously advised Layne that he could be
sentenced to a maximum of twelve months in prison for each charge and that the court could
order Layne to serve these sentences consecutively if he violated community control. See
State v. Brooks, 2004-Ohio-4767, ¶ 29 (upon sentencing a defendant to community control
sanctions, a trial court must notify the defendant of the specific prison term that may be
imposed for a community control sanction violation as a prerequisite to ordering a prison
term for a subsequent violation). Layne expressed to the trial court that he understood.
Accordingly, the trial court made all the required findings for imposing consecutive prison
terms in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and these findings are not unsupported by the
record.
{¶ 13} Layne’s assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 14} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
.............
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.