On Monday, November 17, 2025, John Picard filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo with the Supreme Court of Ohio against the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, and Judge James D. Henson. Picard, acting as his own legal representative (In Pro Se), is an inmate at Belmont Correctional Institution.
Picard’s complaint centers on events following his conviction and sentencing in Richland County. He alleges that Judge Henson made specific instructions regarding his legal representation for a potential appeal. According to Picard, Judge Henson stated that his trial counsel, James Banks, would continue to represent him at least until a notice of appeal was filed. The court would then determine whether to appoint an attorney for the appeal, if Picard requested one.
Picard claims that these instructions were not followed. He was transferred to an intake facility four days later and alleges that no follow-up hearing was held to determine counsel for his appeal, despite a notice of appeal being filed. Picard contends he believed, partly due to encouragement from Banks, that Banks had been assigned as his appellate counsel.
Picard argues that a conflict of interest arose because his trial counsel was also assigned to handle his appeal. He asserts that Banks would be incapable of effectively arguing his own ineffectiveness at the trial level. Picard raised this issue in October 2022 but claims it was barred by procedure each time. He cites Supreme Court of the United States case Martinez v. Ryan, arguing that errors in initial review (direct appeal) often prevent state courts from hearing a prisoner’s claim.
Picard’s complaint asserts that he has a right to effective assistance of counsel, free from conflicts of interest, for both his trial and direct appeal. He argues that Judge Henson was aware of the potential conflict in having the same counsel represent him at both stages. Picard maintains that the judge’s failure to hold a hearing to determine whether appellate counsel effectively appointed trial counsel as appellate counsel, without obtaining a waiver of the right to conflict-free representation.
Picard requests that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo, directing the respondents to grant him a new direct appeal with conflict-free representation. He argues that his due process rights were violated because he did not have a direct appeal with counsel unhindered by a conflict of interest.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
