State v. Simpkins

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 2008-03-20

Cited by 401 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Lanzinger, J., dissenting. {¶ 39} The real question here is how a sentencing error involving postrelease control should be characterized and when it should be corrected. The majority holds that Simpkins’s sentence was “void” and a nullity from the beginning. As a result, it entitles the state to a new sentencing hearing in this case. I respectfully dissent. {¶ 40} The holding that a sentence…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.