State v. Teagardren, 2018 Ohio 3767

Trevor Teagarden was convicted in 2008 of rape of a child under 13 (Count I) and multiple counts of gross sexual imposition (Counts II–IV); initial sentence included a 7-year definite term on Count I and concurrent/consecutive terms on others.
On direct appeal the court found certain counts merged and remanded for resentencing; multiple resentencings and agreements followed, including an attempted amendment of Count I to attempted rape, which this court later held was beyond the scope of the remand.
On remand the state chose to proceed on the original rape count (Count I), and the trial court imposed the statutorily mandated indeterminate sentence of 10 years to life on July 23, 2015; that sentence was affirmed on appeal (Teagarden IV) and became final when the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.
In August 2017 Teagarden moved to vacate the 2015 sentence under R.C. 5145.01, arguing the imposition of an indeterminate 10-to-life term was void and that res judicata did not bar his challenge.
The trial court overruled the motion and Teagarden appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding (1) his new arguments were barred by res judicata and (2) R.C. 5145.01 does not render the sentence void nor does it instruct sentencing courts in a way that would invalidate the 2015 sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Teagarden)	Held
Whether Teagarden's motion to vacate the 2015 sentence is barred by res judicata	The State: prior appeals and final judgments resolved the sentencing issues; new attack is barred	Teagarden: the 2015 sentence is void under R.C. 5145.01, so res judicata should not apply	Held: barred by res judicata — previous appeals and the finality of Teagarden IV preclude relitigation
Whether R.C. 5145.01 renders the 2015 indeterminate sentence void or requires a different result	The State: 5145.01 governs placement and corrective effect but does not void valid sentences or alter the remand instruction enforcing the statutorily mandated sentence	Teagarden: 5145.01 prevented vacating his original definite 7-year term and thus makes the 2015 indeterminate sentence invalid	Held: 5145.01 does not void the sentence and does not support vacatur; the statute does not instruct sentencing courts to invalidate sentences and instead contemplates correction rather than voiding
Whether the court should consider a pro se brief filed while counsel represented Teagarden	The State: procedural rule disallows hybrid representation; only counsel’s brief is considered	Teagarden: attempted hybrid briefing (pro se plus counsel)	Held: pro se brief disregarded; a defendant cannot simultaneously be represented by counsel and proceed pro se

State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars postconviction litigation of issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (foundational Ohio doctrine on res judicata in criminal cases)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (no right to hybrid representation; defendant may be represented by counsel or proceed pro se with standby counsel)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs the continued effect of appellate decisions on later proceedings)
State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 2006) (a defendant represented by counsel cannot submit a separate pro se brief on appeal)
State v. Chapman, 149 Ohio St.3d 1421 (Ohio 2017) (recognizes R.C. 5145.01 does not void a sentence or entitle a defendant to de novo resentencing)