[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. 
2.

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. 
3.

{¶ 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 

 
4.

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. 
5.

{¶ 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.

 
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 of 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 pursuant 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 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/.