[Cite as State v. Combs, 2026-Ohio-3043.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 2025-CA-33
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2025 CR 034
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
AMY MICHELLE COMBS : Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on August 7, 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,
MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE
LEWIS, P.J., and EPLEY, J., concur.
OPINION
CHAMPAIGN C.A. No. 2025-CA-33
HOLLY M. SIMPSON, Attorney for Appellant
JANE A. NAPIER, Attorney for Appellee
HUFFMAN, J.
{¶ 1} Amy Michelle Combs appeals from her judgment entry of conviction on three
counts of tampering with coin machines. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Combs was indicted on April 7, 2025, on eight counts of tampering with coin
machines, which were based on a theft from a laundromat. On October 16, 2025, she
pleaded guilty to three of the eight counts, and in exchange, the remaining charges were
dismissed. The court sentenced Combs to 12 months on each count to be served
consecutively pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), for an aggregate term of 36 months. The
court imposed a total fine of $750 and ordered $200 in restitution to the victim.
Assignments of Error and Analysis
{¶ 3} Combs asserts two assignments of error, which we consider together. She
claims that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences “when the court’s findings
supporting the sentence are not found in the record.” She also claims that the consecutive
36-month term is “grossly disproportionate” to the offenses. She argues that her “excessive”
punishment was cruel and unusual. Combs contests the court’s conclusion at disposition
that she showed no genuine remorse and instead blamed her codefendant.
{¶ 4} When reviewing felony sentences, we must apply the standard of review set
forth in R.C. 2953.08(G). State v. Worthen, 2021-Ohio-2788, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). Under this
2
standard, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate it
altogether and remand for resentencing, if it “‘clearly and convincingly’ finds either (1) that
the record does not support certain specified findings [including those under
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which concern the imposition of consecutive sentences] or (2) that the
sentence imposed is contrary to law.” Id.
{¶ 5} R.C. 2929.14(C) states in relevant part:
(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions
of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison
terms consecutively if the court finds that the 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, and if
the court also finds any of the following:
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime
by the offender.
{¶ 6} At disposition, the court stated:
In imposing consecutive sentences, the Court finds that consecutive
sentencing is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the
Defendant. And consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and the danger that Defendant poses
to the public. And Defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
3
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime
by the Defendant.
{¶ 7} Combs’s judgment entry of conviction states that she demonstrated a lack of
genuine remorse and assigned full blame for her conduct to her co-defendant, Anthony
Landgraf, who also has an extensive criminal history. The entry highlights Combs’s criminal
history in Ross, Scioto, Hamilton, and Montgomery Counties: 29 convictions for theft-related
conduct, ranging from second-degree felony burglary to misdemeanor theft; 7 convictions
for alcohol or drug-related offenses; 5 convictions for vehicle trespass; 9 theft-related cases
that were dismissed; 2 theft-related cases with unclear dispositions; and 6 vehicle trespass
cases with unclear dispositions. According to the entry, after Combs committed the offenses
in this case, but before her arraignment on them, she committed failure to comply with an
order or signal of a police officer and theft offenses, both of which occurred in Montgomery
County. When Combs committed the Montgomery County offenses, she was on community
control supervision for her conviction of possession of cocaine, and she was also on bond
for a pending charge of possession of cocaine (for which she was also convicted). The trial
court indicated that Combs had an unresolved community based correctional facility
commitment pending the outcome of this matter. The court found that the offenses to which
Combs pleaded guilty in this case were not crimes of opportunity but were premeditated.
The court determined that Combs had failed to respond favorably to sanctions previously
imposed.
{¶ 8} Combs’s PSI is consistent with the court’s recitation of her criminal history. She
described an “addiction to stealing” that began during childhood family vacations to Hilton
Head, South Carolina, where she and her mother each stole dishes and silverware
comprising a full service for eight from an “expensive hotel restaurant.” As for the incident
4
underlying this case, the PSI states that Combs and Landgraf entered the laundromat
wearing masks and sunglasses and that surveillance video depicted Combs acting as a
“lookout” during the theft, suggesting premeditation. As the court found, Combs did not
express remorse and blamed Landgraf. Combs stated that she passed out while travelling
in Landgraf’s vehicle, woke up at the laundromat, went inside, and was “NOT OK with
anything that [Landgraf] was doing by getting into the machines.” According to Combs, she
“told [Landgraf that] this IS not what I had expected” and that she did not want “any part of
his shenanigans.” She stated that she got back in the car, did drugs, and passed out again.
Combs stated that when she and Landgraf returned to Dayton, she accepted $20 in quarters
from Landgraf, belying any suggestion of remorse.
{¶ 9} Combs’s individual sentences for the fifth-degree felony offenses are not
contrary to law. R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). Based on her documented criminal history, we do not
clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) and its imposition of consecutive sentences.
{¶ 10} Finally, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual
punishments” requires that the punishment for a crime be proportionate to the offense.
Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910). “‘[C]ases in which cruel and unusual
punishments have been found are limited to those involving sanctions which under the
circumstances would be considered shocking to any reasonable person.’” State v.
Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368, 371 (1999), quoting McDougle v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 68,
69 (1964). “‘As a general rule, a sentence that falls within the terms of a valid statute cannot
amount to a cruel and unusual punishment.’” State v. Hairston, 2008-Ohio-2338, ¶ 21,
quoting McDougle at 69. In Hairston, the Supreme Court concluded that the imposition of
an aggregate 134-year prison term on a defendant did not constitute cruel and unusual
5
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. The Court held, “Where none of the individual
sentences imposed on an offender are grossly disproportionate to their respective offenses,
an aggregate prison term resulting from consecutive imposition of those sentences does not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. at syllabus.
{¶ 11} None of the individual sentences imposed on Combs were grossly
disproportionate to their respective offenses as they were within the statutory range.
Accordingly, the aggregate prison term resulting from the consecutive imposition of those
sentences was not unconstitutional.
{¶ 12} Based on the foregoing, Combs’s assignments of error are overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 13} The judgment of the Champaign County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
LEWIS, P.J., and EPLEY, J., concur.
6