Case Citator › State v. Bezak

State v. Bezak

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
114 Ohio St. 3d 94
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
70 of 70
Citing cases (total)
70
Treatment dates
2010–2020
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Bezak has been overruled in part. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected its requirement for a complete new sentencing hearing and later rejected its rule that improper postrelease control makes the affected sentence void.
More on how this was screened

All 70 flagged citations have been read; the two 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.

70 later cases cite State v. Bezak; 70 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. Bezak?

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 Bezak's requirement for a complete new sentencing hearing, limiting resentencing to correction of the postrelease control portion.

    State v. Fischer · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    Instead, our decision today revisits only one component of the holding in Bezak, and we overrule only that portion of the syllabus that requires a complete resentencing hearing rather than a hearing restricted to the void portion of the sentence.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled Bezak's rule that a failure to impose postrelease control properly makes the affected part of a sentence void; such an error makes the sentence voidable and must be raised on direct appeal.

    State v. Harper · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, syllabus, overruled in part, Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, at ¶ 36. ... 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 →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Bezak 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