The Arizona Court of Appeals said experts must wait 20 days before examining Sophia Simmons.

Friday's opinion sets the earliest date for the intellectual-disability exams. It is not a finding that Simmons has an intellectual disability, and the murder charge has not been tried. KTAR's 35th Avenue and the 2023 account at 31st Avenue are not the same intersection. April, which both stations printed, and April 26, 2027, which the opinion printed, are not the same date.

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, filed an opinion on Oct. 23, 2026, in Sophia Dominique Simmons v. State, No. 1 CA-SA 26-0004. Presiding Judge David B. Gass wrote it. Judge Anni Hill Foster and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. The opinion says Gass retired effective June 30, 2026, and is sitting as a judge pro tempore under a designation by the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. The court accepted special-action jurisdiction and granted relief. The petition came from Maricopa County Superior Court case CR2024-006820-001, before Judge Joseph Shayne Kiefer. The Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, by Richard J. Parker and Eden M. Brown, represented Simmons. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office, by Julie A. Done, Erin Otis, and Jeffrey Roseberry, represented the state. KTAR and AZFamily spelled her Sophia Simmons and did not print Dominique.

The opinion says the state seeks the death penalty in its prosecution of Sophia Simmons for the murder of her daughter, and that she asked the superior court to assess whether an intellectual disability bars the state from executing her. It quotes the statute: if the superior court finds she has an intellectual disability and she is later convicted of a capital offense, she "shall not be sentenced to death but shall be sentenced to life or natural life." The daughter is not named here. The opinion says that after the daughter's death the state charged Simmons with first-degree murder, along with related crimes, and filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Those are charges. They are not a verdict. KTAR, in a story by David Iversen published Oct. 26, 2026, at 7:03 p.m. and updated Oct. 27 at 11:03 a.m., reported she is charged with first-degree murder and child abuse, and that she was accused of tampering with evidence when she allegedly tried to clean the crime scene. The opinion's related crimes and KTAR's child-abuse and tampering description are not the same list.

The opinion says a prescreening psychological expert determined Simmons's intelligence quotient was 53, and that an intelligence quotient of 75 or below triggers further examinations. KTAR reported the same score of 53 and the same line at 75. AZFamily, in a story by Alexis Dominguez published Oct. 28, 2026, at 6:15 p.m. MST, reported the same preliminary score of 53. AZFamily quoted criminal defense attorney David Black, who is not counsel on the opinion, saying a score of 75 or lower requires further evaluations and a court hearing. The opinion says the superior court appointed one expert the state nominated and one Simmons nominated, set a deadline for records relevant to her intellectual ability, and granted her an extension of that deadline. It says the state scheduled its expert to examine her before the extended deadline passed, she objected, and Judge Kiefer overruled the objection.

The statute the opinion quotes says that not less than twenty days after receipt of the records, or twenty days after the deadline for providing them, whichever is later, each intellectual-disability expert shall examine the defendant. The opinion says the state argued that "not less than" means "within," so the examination had to be finished no more than twenty days after the later of those dates. It says Simmons argued the words set a minimum wait. The court held that the legislature used "within" when it meant a maximum, used that word elsewhere in the same statute, and chose "not less than" for this step. The conclusion says no party may conduct an examination under that subsection until at least 20 days have passed from the later of the last disclosure of relevant evidence or the superior court's deadline for the disclosure. KTAR reported the court said the law requires experts to wait at least 20 days after her school, medical, and other records are due. A wait measured from when the records are due, and a wait measured from the later of the last disclosure or the deadline, are not the same clock if records arrive after the deadline. The opinion also says the statutory timeframe expired before the court could rule, and that it decided the question anyway. KTAR did not print that the window had already closed. KTAR reported the ruling now applies to death penalty cases across Arizona. The opinion says the question is of statewide importance and is likely to arise again. A published reading of the statute and a claim that this order now governs every capital case are not the same sentence.

KTAR reported police said she assaulted her daughter, whose body was found in a dumpster near 35th Avenue and Thomas Road on Christmas Eve 2023. KTAR's December 2023 story put Simmons's age at 38, put the body in a dumpster by a business in the area of 31st Avenue and Thomas Road, and put the alleged assault at about 8 p.m. on a Sunday. Christmas Eve 2023 was a Sunday. The 2026 KTAR story did not print the age. 35th Avenue and 31st Avenue are not the same intersection. AZFamily reported the body was left in a dumpster days before Christmas in 2023, and reported investigators say she beat her daughter. Assaulted, which the 2026 KTAR story used, and beat, which AZFamily used, are not the same verb. Days before Christmas and Christmas Eve are not the same timing. AZFamily reported neighbors said they had never seen the daughter living at the apartment complex, and reported the Department of Child Safety never had contact with Simmons or a report of abuse before the daughter died. AZFamily printed a name and an age for the daughter. Neither is repeated here. KTAR reported no decision has been made on whether Simmons is intellectually disabled. The opinion's footnote says the court takes judicial notice that the trial currently is set for April 26, 2027, and that the parties had agreed an earlier trial date was not firm. KTAR reported the trial is slated to start in April. AZFamily reported it is set to begin in April. Neither station printed April 26 or 2027. Friday's order is about when the experts may examine her. It does not decide the murder charge. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.