Case Citator › State v. Jordan

State v. Jordan

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
104 Ohio St. 3d 21
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
65 of 65
Citing cases (total)
65
Treatment dates
2013–2020
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Jordan was overruled in part. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected Jordan's rule that an error imposing postrelease control makes a sentence void.
More on how this was screened

A later statute also displaced Jordan's original procedure for correcting that error. Courts continue to apply its notice requirement and its search ruling. All 65 flagged citations have been read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

65 later cases cite State v. Jordan; 65 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. Jordan?

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 Jordan's rule that an error imposing postrelease control makes the sentence void; such an error makes the sentence voidable and must be raised on direct appeal.

    State v. Harper · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    In State v. Jordan, we held that the trial court’s failure to comply with its statutory duty to provide notice of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing rendered the resulting sentence “contrary to law” and “void.” ... 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 →

Superseded by statute

  • The Seventh District held that a later statute displaced Jordan's earlier remedy for a sentence that improperly imposed postrelease control.

    State v. Antol · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District · filed

    In support, Antol cites to a line of post-release control cases that addressed, on narrow grounds, a trial court’s non-compliance with post-release control statutes: State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864; State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 471 N.E.2d 774 (1984), Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000). These cases have since been superseded by a statute which establishes a remedial procedure for the correction of a sentence that failed to properly impose post-release control.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Jordan 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