On Tuesday, April 14, 2026, John H. Mack, Jr. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio against the Richland County Common Pleas Court and Judge Brent Neil Robinson.

Mack, who is incarcerated at the Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution in Lima, Ohio, is seeking to compel the court to comply with a mandate from the Fifth District Court of Appeals regarding the preservation of evidence in his case.

The legal action stems from Mack’s conviction in Richland County Common Pleas Court, where he was found guilty of 17 misdemeanor and felony counts, including aggravated murder and kidnapping. Following the trial, Mack motioned the court, presided over by Judge Robinson, to preserve evidence pursuant to R.C. §2933.82, also requesting an inventory of the collected items.

Mack’s motion was denied, leading to an appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded the case back to the Respondent. Mack argues that Judge Robinson disobeyed the appellate court’s mandate by failing to order the preservation of evidence and provide an inventory of the items, which he claims constitutes a “serious error of law”.

In December 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Appellate District’s decision in State of Ohio ex rel. John H. Mack, Jr. v. Judge, Brent N. Robinson, Case No. 2025-0647.

Mack is requesting the Supreme Court to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent to comply with R.C. §2933.82, making records available as requested and without improper redactions. He also requests the Court to conduct an in-camera review of any claimed appropriate redactions, issue an alternative writ, schedule the presentation of evidence and the filing of briefs, and order any other relief available under R.C. §2933.82.

Mack claims that the reopening of his direct appeal on February 3, 2026, by the Fifth Appellate District allows him to present additional evidence, including an inventory of biological material withheld from his trial. He argues this evidence is critical to his claim that he was not the “principal offender” in the conviction for which he received a life sentence without parole.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.