Teagarden v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
TREVOR TEAGARDEN, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 2:24-cv-3899
:
- vs - 	: 	District Judge Algenon L. Marbley
:
: 	Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, Pickaway Correctional, 	:
Institution, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
OPINION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus action was brought by Petitioner Trevor Teagarden with the assistance
of counsel pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to obtain relief from his conviction in the Licking County
Court of Common Pleas on one count of rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition. It was
referred to a Magistrate Judge who has filed a report and recommendations recommending
dismissal (the “Report,” ECF No. 28). 	Petitioner has objected to the Report (ECF No. 31) and
those Objections are now before the District Court for consideration.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed de
novo the Report with particular attention to those portions objected to by Petitioner. Having done
so, the Court finds the objections are without merit and they are OVERRULED for the reasons set
forth below.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Because Petitioner had previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus directed to the
same conviction (See Teagarden v. Warden, Case No. 2:10-cv-495), the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the question whether the instant Petition was “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. §
Case: 2:24-cv-03899-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
2244(b) and thus required circuit court permission to proceed. Applying Magwood v. Patterson,
561 U.S. 320 (2010), and its progeny, the Report concluded this Court had jurisdiction and could
proceed. Neither party objected to that conclusion. However, out of an abundance of caution, the
Court has reviewed the question and agrees it has jurisdiction to proceed.
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
While the Petition did not properly state a claim for relief on its face, the Magistrate Judge
read the accompanying Memorandum as pleading three possible claims:
Additional Ground One
In one of the remands, the State was given the “choice” on what
crime Defendant should ultimately be sentenced. The State chose to
sentence the Defendant to a crime which carried a 10 to life term of
incarceration. In doing so, the State violated Rule 7(D) the result of
which was an increased sentence.
Additional Ground Two
Defendant's sentence was unconstitutionally increased after he had
begun serving the February 9, 2009, sentence.
Additional Ground Three
The State cannot move to correct an unlawful sentence 18 years after
that sentence was journalized.
(Report, ECF No. 28, PageID 1305).
The Report concluded Additional Grounds One and Three did not state claims for relief
under the Constitution. 	Petitioner does not object to this conclusion (Objections, ECF No. 31,
PageID 1324). Petitioner does object, however, to the Report’s conclusion that there is no merit
to his Double Jeopardy claim which is that once he began to serve the lesser sentence for attempted
rape, re-imposing the mandatory minimum term violated the Double Jeopardy clause.
It is undisputed that, at the time Petitioner committed the offense of rape of a child under
thirteen, Ohio law provided a mandatory minimum sentence for that offense of life imprisonment.
Case: 2:24-cv-03899-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
At one point in the lengthy state appellate history of this case, the prosecutor attempted to amend
that charge to attempted rape. However, the Ohio Court of Appeals found the trial court had no
authority under Ohio law to make that amendment and Petitioner was bound to serve the
mandatory minimum term, which he is now serving.
In his Traverse, Petitioner argued this claims as follows:
He was sentenced to seven years, then nine years, then ten years,
and finally ten years to life. This must be double jeopardy.
Whenever the Petitioner goes back to court, he receives a new
sentence and, in one case, release from prison. There is no justice in
that for anyone.
Double jeopardy was meant to bring finality to a defendant's anxiety
regarding their punishment. Petitioner has never felt this finality. It
has changed. Without warning.
(Traverse, ECF No. 26, PageID 1278).
The Report concluded the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals had decided this Double
Jeopardy claim on the merits and that the burden on Petitioner in habeas was to show this
conclusion was contrary to or an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established
Supreme Court precedent (ECF No. 28, PageID 1309). 	The Report also noted that the only
Supreme Court case Petitioner argued to be relevant was United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S.
117 (1980). Id. 	In that case, a federal court of appeals had reversed on Double Jeopardy grounds
imposition of two concurrent one-year sentences on a defendant found to have been a “dangerous
special offender.” 	The Supreme Court reinstated the District Court’s sentence and held, as the
Report notes, “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause does not provide the defendant with a right to know
at any specific moment in time what the exact limit of his punishment will turn out to be.” (Report,
ECF No. 28, PageID 1309). 	Finding the Fifth District’s conclusion in this case was not an
objectively 	unreasonable 	application 	of 	DiFrancesco, 	the 	Report 	recommended 	denying
Case: 2:24-cv-03899-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Petitioner’s Double Jeopardy claim. Petitioner objects, but his objection is completely conclusory:
he offers no argument about how the Fifth District’s decision misapplies DiFrancesco. Indeed,
the Objections cite no Supreme Court precedent at all on double jeopardy.
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Objections fails to persuade the Court of any error in the Report. 	The Report is
accordingly adopted and the Objections are overruled. The Clerk will enter judgment dismissing
the Petition with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion,
Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that
any appeal would be objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
DATED: November 21, 2025
Case: 2:24-cv-03899-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>