State v. Layson
This text of 2020 Ohio 4336 (State v. Layson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Layson, 2020-Ohio-4336.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-19-1204
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201801738
v.
Artis Layson DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 4, 2020
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lauren Carpenter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Michael H. Stahl, for appellant.
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Artis Layson, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas, finding that he committed a community control violation, and sentencing
him to continue serving community control with added conditions. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On June 5, 2018, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of insurance fraud in
violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(2) and (C), a felony of the third degree, and one count of
failure to comply in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5)(a)(ii), a felony of the third
degree. The trial court sentenced appellant to three years of community control.
{¶ 3} On August 27, 2019, appellant appeared before the trial court for a hearing
on a community control violation. Appellant indicated that he was unable to retain
counsel, so a public defender was appointed to represent him. The trial court then
afforded counsel an opportunity to speak with appellant, and recalled the case later during
the morning docket.
{¶ 4} When the case was recalled, counsel stated that appellant was going to admit
to the community control violations and waive his right to a hearing. Counsel then spoke
in mitigation, explaining to the court that appellant understands that he must comply with
the terms of his probation. However, appellant has had some difficulty complying
because he was not able to get a pass from the work release program to attend some
assessments. In addition, once he was off work release, appellant began working 50
hours per week at Thyssenkrupp, which has made it difficult for appellant to attend
meetings. Counsel stated that appellant has six children and is trying to get custody of
his son, and that is why he is working so hard. Counsel requested that the court extend
his probation so that he could continue making efforts towards completing the
requirements of community control.
2. {¶ 5} Appellant then spoke on his own behalf. Appellant apologized for not
complying with the terms of his probation, and requested a second chance to demonstrate
that he can be successful.
{¶ 6} The state did not speak in the matter.
{¶ 7} Following the statements by counsel and appellant, the trial court
commented that it was hesitant to place appellant on community control initially because
of appellant’s lengthy criminal history. The court then observed that appellant’s
priorities were out of place, and that appellant has not prioritized his supervision by the
court, his mental health, or his substance abuse issues. The court recognized that
appellant has rarely provided drug screens when he was ordered to, and when he has,
they have come back positive for drugs.
{¶ 8} Thereafter, the trial court ordered that appellant would remain on community
control, but that he would be committed to the Correction Center of Northwest Ohio for
180 days where he would be ordered to complete substance abuse treatment and the
Changing Offender Behavior program.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} Appellant has timely appealed the trial court’s August 27, 2019 judgment
entry, and now asserts one assignment of error for our review:
1. Mr. Layson was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel
when counsel failed to investigate the full scope of the community control
3. violations against Mr. Layson, advised him to waive a formal hearing and
admit to the violations, and failed to address the most serious violations in
mitigation.
III. Analysis
{¶ 10} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must
satisfy the two-prong test developed in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). That is, appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and a reasonable
probability exists that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceedings would have
been different. Id. at 687-688, 694. In undertaking our review, we note that “[j]udicial
scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689. “[A] court
must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance.” Id.
{¶ 11} In support of his assignment of error, appellant argues that counsel had
insufficient time to investigate the nature of the case. Further, appellant argues that
counsel should have addressed appellant’s addiction issues, and suggested alternatives to
the court that were less restrictive than confinement in the Corrections Center of
Northwest Ohio. Appellant proposes that counsel’s limited engagement with appellant
rendered counsel little more than “a person who happens to be a lawyer * * * present at
trial alongside the accused.” Id. at 685. We disagree.
4. {¶ 12} Here, counsel’s decision of which arguments to emphasize in mitigation
falls squarely within the wide latitude given to attorneys to determine the appropriate trial
tactics. “[D]ebatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.”
State v. Hoffner, 102 Ohio St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-3430, 811 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 45.
Furthermore, we find that the record does not demonstrate any deficient performance.
Counsel met with appellant and learned the reasons why appellant did not comply with
his community control requirements. Notably, there is nothing in the record to suggest
that the allegations of community control violations were unfounded, and indeed, what
little is in the record demonstrates that the violations were clear based on appellant’s
failure to provide clean drug tests. Rather than contesting the violations, counsel chose to
provide reasons for appellant’s non-compliance that attempted to put appellant in the best
light possible, in that counsel argued that appellant was working hard to support his
family and get custody of his son, and his long work hours made it difficult to comply
with his drug tests and assessments. In doing so, counsel was more than just a person
who happens to be a lawyer standing alongside the accused. Therefore, we hold that
appellant has not demonstrated that counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness, and thus his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must
fail.
{¶ 13} Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
5. IV. Conclusion
{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice has been done the
party complaining, and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 Ohio 4336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-layson-ohioctapp-2020.