State v. Fischer
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
State v. Harper overruled Fischer's rule that an error in imposing postrelease control makes that portion of a sentence void, and State v. Henderson extended the restored jurisdictional definition of voidness to other statutory sentencing errors. State v. Holdcroft had earlier limited Fischer by barring correction after the prison term for the affected offense was fully served. Fischer's separate propositions that judges must impose the sentences supplied by statute and that res judicata governs unaffected portions continue to be cited.
1,066 later cases cite State v. Fischer; 175 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on State v. Fischer?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in Part
-
The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled Fischer to the extent it held that a failure to properly impose postrelease control makes that portion of a sentence void; when the sentencing court had jurisdiction, the error is voidable and must be raised on direct appeal.
State v. Harper · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
For all of the reasons stated above, we overrule our precedent to the extent that it holds that the failure to properly impose postrelease control in the sentence renders that portion of a defendant’s sentence void.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Ohio extended Harper beyond postrelease-control errors and overruled Fischer's broader rule treating a statutorily noncompliant sentence as void despite the sentencing court's jurisdiction.
State v. Henderson · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
Harper overruled our prior cases that conflicted with its holding, i.e., those cases in which we labeled as void sentences in which a trial court erred when imposing postrelease control. Id. at ¶ 40. But Harper did not involve a case in which a trial court deviated from a statutory mandate. Although Harper concluded that a sentence is void only when a sentencing court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused, see id. at ¶ 42, we are mindful that parties may still try to distinguish Harper from cases that do not involve the imposition of postrelease control. Today, we make it clear that sentences based on an error are voidable, if the court imposing the sentence has jurisdiction over the case and the defendant, including sentences in which a trial court fails to impose a statutorily mandated term. A sentence is void only if the sentencing court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Supreme Court of Ohio limited Fischer's void-sanction correction rule by holding that a court cannot resentence a defendant after the prison term for the affected offense has been fully served.
State v. Holdcroft · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
But once the time for filing an appeal has run, Ohio courts are limited to correcting a void sanction. Fischer at ¶ 27. And once the prison-sanction portion of a sentence for a crime has been fully served, the structure of Ohio felony-sentencing law and the defendant’s legitimate expectation in finality in his sentence prevent a court from further modifying the sentence for that crime in any way. A trial court does not have the authority to resentence a defendant for the purpose of adding a term of postrelease control as a sanction for a particular offense after the defendant has already served the prison term for that offense.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Fischer and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace