State v. Simpkins
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Earlier, State v. Singleton confined the new-sentencing procedure discussed in Simpkins to sentences imposed before July 11, 2006. All 51 flagged citations have been read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. The flagged opinion in State v. Lester called Simpkins “abrogated by statute” in a citation-history parenthetical while resolving a different error. It supplies no independent entry. The direct treating opinions, Singleton and Harper, were read and cached separately. An Ohio appellate court later described Harper as abrogating Simpkins on other grounds in State v. Ingels, 2020-Ohio-4367, ¶ 10.
51 later cases cite State v. Simpkins; 51 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. Simpkins?
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 Ohio Supreme Court overruled Simpkins's rule that failure to impose mandatory postrelease control renders that part of a sentence void.
State v. Harper · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
... failure to properly impose postrelease control rendered the sentence void and permitted it to be corrected at any time prior to the expiration of the journalized sentence. E.g., ... Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, at ¶ 6; ... 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 →
Limited
-
The Ohio Supreme Court confined Simpkins's new-sentencing procedure to sentences imposed before July 11, 2006, and applied the statutory correction procedure to later sentences.
State v. Singleton · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
In State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, we stated: “[I]n cases in which a defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, an offense for which postrelease control is required but not properly included in the sentence, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have postrelease control imposed on the defendant unless the defendant has completed his sentence.” ... However, because R.C. 2929.191 applies prospectively to sentences entered on or after July 11, 2006, that lack proper imposition of postrelease control, a trial court may correct those sentences in accordance with the procedures set forth in that statute.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Simpkins 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