[Cite as State v. Mack,
2024-Ohio-6103.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 24CA26
:
JOHN H. MACK, JR. :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No.
2021CR0203
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 31, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
JODIE M. SCHUMACHER JOHN H. MACK, JR., PRO SE
RICHLAND CO. PROSECUTOR #794-244
MICHELLE FINK Allen Correctional Institution
Assistant Prosecutor 2338 North West Street
38 South Park St. Lima, OH 45801
Mansfield, OH 44902
Richland County, Case No. 24CA26 2
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant John H. Mack, Jr. appeals from the May 2, 2024 judgment entry
of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas overruling his motion for release of public
records. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
{¶2} The instant case is related to but not consolidated with 5th District Court of
Appeals, Richland County case number 24CA25, arising from the trial court’s decision
overruling appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief in a separate case before the trial
court. Additionally, appellant’s direct appeal of his convictions and sentence remains
pending before this Court. 5th District Court of Appeals, Richland County case number
22CA23.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶3} A statement of the facts underlying appellant’s convictions and sentence
are not necessary for our resolution of this appeal. In the underlying case, appellant was
convicted of receiving stolen property.
{¶4} On April 2, 2024, in the trial court, appellant filed a “Motion for Release of
Public Information” requesting but not limited to docket sheets and clerks’ entries from all
of his pending cases before the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, the Fifth District
Court of Appeals, and the Ohio Supreme Court; the case file with transcripts from
Richland County case number 2021 CR 221 R, which appellant referred to as the
“companion case” to the instant case; and the location(s) of various pieces of evidence
and reports related thereto.
Richland County, Case No. 24CA26 3
{¶5} The trial court overruled appellant’s motion by judgment entry dated May 2,
2024. Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s entry overruling his motion for
disclosure of the requested items.
{¶6} Appellant raises two assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
IT DENIED A MOTION FOR PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST (SIC) IN SUPPORT OF A
JUSTICIABLE CLAIM.”
{¶8} “II. THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN DENYING MACK’S
REQUEST FOR, BECAUSE HE HAD ESTABLISHED AN ENTITLEMENT TO, A
FINDING FOR PURPOSES OF R.C.149.43(B)(8) THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT
IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT WHAT APPEARS TO BE A
JUSTICIABLE CLAIM (SIC THROUGHOUT).”
ANALYSIS
I., II.
{¶9} Appellant’s two assignments of error are related and will be considered
together. Appellant argues the trial court should have granted his “public records
request.” We disagree.
{¶10} The instant appeal is part of a larger procedural quagmire. Appellant was
convicted of, e.g., aggravated murder in a separate case before the trial court. His direct
appeal in that case remains pending; in the meantime, he filed a petition for post-
conviction relief, which was overruled. Our separate opinion in the related case [24CA25]
affirms the trial court’s decision.
Richland County, Case No. 24CA26 4
{¶11} At the time of appellant’s records request, he cited three pending actions:
Ohio Supreme Court case number 2024-114, which the Court declined to accept on the
same day appellant filed his motion; Fifth District Court of Appeals, Richland County, case
number 22CA83, which remains pending and arose from a separate trial court case, 2021
CR 221 [aggravated murder]; and the petition for post-conviction relief, also arising from
his conviction in 2021 CR 221. None of the requests, therefore, arose from the case in
which appellant filed the motion.
{¶12} R.C. 149.43(B)(8) states:
A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to
permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction or a
juvenile adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record
concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution or concerning what would
be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the subject of the investigation
or prosecution were an adult, unless the request to inspect or to obtain a
copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring information that is subject
to release as a public record under this section and the judge who imposed
the sentence or made the adjudication with respect to the person, or the
judge's successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public
record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the
person.
{¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court described R.C. 149.43(B)(8) as “broad and
encompassing” and as “clearly set[ting] forth heightened requirements for inmates
seeking public records.” State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 2006-Ohio-5858, ¶ 14. A
Richland County, Case No. 24CA26 5
justifiable claim does not exist where an inmate fails to identify “any pending proceeding
with respect to which the requested documents would be material ….” State v. Benson,
2022-Ohio-2126, ¶ 22 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Atakpu,
2013-Ohio-4392, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.).
“[I]t is the responsibility of the person who wishes to inspect and/or copy records to identify
with reasonable clarity the records at issue.” Id. at ¶ 23, citing State ex rel. Morgan v. New
Lexington,
2006-Ohio-6365, ¶ 29. Establishing a justiciable claim ordinarily involves
identifying “a pending proceeding with respect to which the requested documents would
be material.” State v. Jones,
2023-Ohio-3930, ¶ 17 (5th Dist.), appeal not allowed, 2024-
Ohio-1832, citing State v. Heid,
2015-Ohio-1467, ¶ 14 (4th Dist.).
{¶14} An inmate may seek appellate review of a trial court's denial of his request
for public records and we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. Jones, supra, ¶
15, internal citations omitted. The term “abuse of discretion” indicates an attitude that is
arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217,
219 (1983).
{¶15} We find no abuse of discretion in the instant case. The pending actions cited
by appellant were either terminated (Ohio Supreme Court) or appellant was represented
by counsel who could request appropriate appellate documents on his behalf (appeal of
21 CR 221). The requested documents had little or nothing to do with the receiving-stolen-
property case in which appellant filed the motion. Appellant therefore failed to establish a
justiciable claim in the case in which he filed the records request. Appellant failed to meet
the threshold requirements of a public records document request pursuant to R.C.
149.43.(B)(8) and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Richland County, Case No. 24CA26 6
CONCLUSION
{¶16} Appellant’s two assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the
Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.,
Gwin, J. and
Hoffman, J., concur.
