[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 Coun ty Court of Common Pleas, finding that he committed a community control vio lation, and sentencing him to continue serving community control with added conditions . For the reasons that follow, we affirm.2. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On June 5, 2018, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of insur ance 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 f or 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 re called the case later during the morning docket. {¶ 4} When the case was recalled, counsel stated that appellant was g oing to admit to the community control violations and waive his right to a he aring. Counsel then spoke in mitigation, explaining to the court that appellant understan ds that he must comply with the terms of his probation. However, appellant has had some di fficulty complying because he was not able to get a pass from the work release pro gram to attend some assessments. In addition, once he was off work release, appell ant 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 i s trying to get custody of his son, and that is why he is working so hard. Counsel reques ted that the court extend his probation so that he could continue making efforts towards completing the requirements of community control.3. {¶ 5} Appellant then spoke on his own behalf. Appellant apologized f or not complying with the terms of his probation, and requested a seco nd 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 co urt commented that it was hesitant to place appellant on community control initially because of appellant’s lengthy criminal history. The court then observ ed that appellant’s priorities were out of place, and that appellant has not priori tized his supervision by the court, his mental health, or his substance abuse issues. The c ourt 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 Cente r 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 commun ity control4. violations against Mr. Layson, advised him to waive a formal he aring 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, app ellant 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 dem onstrate 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 co unsel had insufficient time to investigate the nature of the case. Furth er, 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 Co rrections Center of Northwest Ohio. Appellant proposes that counsel’s limited enga gement 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.5. {¶ 12} Here, counsel’s decision of which arguments to emphasize in mit igation falls squarely within the wide latitude given to attorneys to d etermine the appropriate trial tactics. “[D]ebatable trial tactics do not establish ineffecti ve 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 d eficient performance. Counsel met with appellant and learned the reasons why appellan t 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 unfou nded, and indeed, what

little is in the record demonstrates that the violations were c lear based on appellant’s failure to provide clean drug tests. Rather than contesting th e violations, counsel chose to provide reasons for appellant’s non-compliance that attempted t o put appellant in the best light possible, in that counsel argued that appellant was worki ng 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. The refore, 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.6. 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 o f Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ______________________

_________ JUDGE Arlene Singer, J.

_______________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.