On Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Tyrone Johnson filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio against Judge Pietrykowski of the Lucas County Courthouse for the Sixth Appellate District. This action stems from Johnson’s conviction on aggravated murder charges and subsequent appeals.
In May 2007, Johnson was convicted in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of aggravated murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and firearm specifications for each count. Judge James D. Jensen presided over the sentencing hearing, where Johnson was sentenced to 20 years to life for each aggravated murder charge, 10 years for aggravated robbery, and a mandatory three years for the firearm specification, with certain terms running concurrently and consecutively.
Johnson then pursued a direct appeal of his convictions, which were consolidated under case numbers L-07-1193 and L-08-1230 in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District. Judge Pietrykowski was part of the appellate panel that reviewed Johnson’s case. Johnson argued that his due process rights were violated because the state failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence—specifically, the automobile in which the murders occurred. He claimed that the vehicle could have provided crucial information about the shooter’s location and direction.
The Court of Appeals, with Judge Pietrykowski participating, ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment in May 2007, upholding Johnson’s conviction and sentence. The appellate court reasoned that the evidence was not materially exculpatory at the time the police released the vehicle, and there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of law enforcement in failing to preserve it.
Following his unsuccessful direct appeal, Johnson filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court, which was denied in June 2008. He then appealed this denial, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and errors by the trial court. Judge Pietrykowski and the Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief, citing procedural deficiencies and the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of issues already decided or that could have been raised in previous appeals. The court found that Johnson had not presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on his claims.
In the current complaint before the Supreme Court of Ohio, Johnson is seeking to have his sentence and conviction vacated, arguing that Judge Pietrykowski lacked the authority to review and affirm his sentences, particularly in light of changes to Ohio Revised Code section 2953.08. Johnson contends that these changes removed the authority of the Court of Appeals to review sentences imposed for aggravated murder and murder.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
