The opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin, 2026-Ohio-1822.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Anthony Walker, :
Relator, : No. 25AP-133
v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
J. Bolin, [Ohio Department of :
Rehabilitation and Correction] Bureau of
Sentence Computation, :
Respondent. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on May 19, 2026
On brief: Anthony Walker, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Salvatore P. Messina,
for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS
MENTEL, J.
{¶ 1} Relator, Anthony Walker, brings this original action in mandamus against
respondent, Jessica Bolin, in her official capacity as an employee of Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction’s Bureau of Sentence Computation to correctly apply
Walker’s jail-time credit to the calculation of his prison term and to correct the calculation
of his first hearing before the Ohio Parole Board.
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
this matter was referred to a magistrate. On March 5, 2026, the magistrate issued the
appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending this
court deny Walker’s writ of mandamus as he failed to establish that Bolin has a clear legal
duty to alter the calculation of his prison term or the date of his first hearing before the
No. 25AP-133 2
parole board. The magistrate found that “[c]ontrary to Walker’s claims, the evidence
submitted to Bolin reflects that Walker’s credit has been applied to the calculation of his
sentence and parole hearing date.” (Appended Mag.’s Decision at 9.) The magistrate
explained that “[t]he September 20, 2024 letter from the bureau reflects that credits in the
amount of 2,053 days had been applied to Walker’s first hearing date, which was, at that
time, scheduled in January 2034. The sentence calculation letter prepare by Pond reflects
that Walker’s first hearing is currently set for February 2034, ‘which would be seen in
November 2033.’ ” (Appended Mag.’s Decision at 9, quoting Bolin’s Evid. at 5.)
{¶ 3} Walker did not file objections in this case. “If no timely objections are filed,
the court may adopt a magistrate’s decision, unless it determines that there is an error of
law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c).
Our review of the magistrate’s decision reveals no error of law or other facial defect that
would preclude adopting it. See, e.g., State ex rel. Wyse v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys.,
2024-Ohio-314, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Alleyne v. Indus. Comm., 2004-Ohio-
4223 (10th Dist.) (adopting the magistrate’s decision where no objections were filed).
{¶ 4} Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own, including
findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the
magistrate’s decision, we deny Walker’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
Writ of mandamus denied.
BEATTY BLUNT and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.
_____________
No. 25AP-133 3
APPENDIX
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Anthony Walker, :
Relator, :
v. : No. 25AP-133
J. Bolin, [Ohio Department of : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rehabilitation and Correction]
Bureau of Sentence Computation, :
Respondent. :
MAGISTRATE’S DECISION
Rendered on March 5, 2026
Anthony Walker, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Salvatore P. Messina, for
respondent.
IN MANDAMUS
{¶ 5} Relator Anthony Walker is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the custody
of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) as a result of multiple
convictions arising out of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Walker seeks a
writ of mandamus ordering respondent Jessica Bolin, in her capacity as an employee of
DRC’s Bureau of Sentence Computation (“bureau”), to correctly apply Walker’s jail-time
credit to the calculation of his prison term and to correct the calculation of his first hearing
before the Ohio Parole Board (“parole board”). For the reasons set forth below, the
magistrate recommends denying the writ.
I. Findings of Fact
No. 25AP-133 4
{¶ 6} 1. Walker is an inmate currently incarcerated at Grafton Correctional
Institution in Grafton, Ohio.
{¶ 7} 2. Bolin is a DRC employee working for the bureau.
{¶ 8} 3. In State v. Walker, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354, Walker was charged
with committing seven offenses: for counts one and two, aggravated murder in violation of
R.C. 2903.01; for count three, aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11; for count
four, aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01; for count five, attempted murder in
violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.02; for counts six and seven, kidnapping in violation of
R.C. 2905.01. Walker was also charged with multiple specifications: for counts one and two,
Walker was charged with a mass murder specification, three felony murder specifications,
and a firearm specification. All other counts were charged with firearm specifications.
Walker was found guilty, pursuant to a jury verdict, of all seven criminal counts and
specifications. The jury recommended imposition of the death sentence for the two counts
of aggravated murder. In an entry dated November 21, 1991, the common pleas court
sentenced Walker as follows:
Walker is sentenced Ct. 1 and 2 to death by electrocution on
March 30, 1992 to run concurrent with each other; Ct. 3 for 10
to 25 years plus 3 years mandatory time on gun specification,
to run consecutive to Cts. 1 and 2; Ct. 4 for 10 to 25 years plus
3 years mandatory time on gun specification to run
consecutive to Cts. 1, 2 and 3; Count 5 for 7 to 25 years plus 3
years mandatory on gun specification consecutive to Cts. 1, 2,
3 and 4; Ct. 6 for 10 to 25 years plus 3 years mandatory on gun
specification, consecutive to counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; Ct. 7 for 10
to 25 years plus 3 years mandatory on gun specification
consecutive to all other counts.
(Bolin Am. Evid. at 7.)
{¶ 9} 4. In State v. Walker, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-269956, Walker was charged
with two counts of aggravated murder, each with firearm and felony murder specifications,
and one count each of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, each with a firearm
specification. Walker entered a plea of guilty to an amended charge of murder, with a nolle
prosequi entered as to the remaining counts. In an entry filed March 18, 1992, the common
pleas court sentenced Walker to a “term of fifteen (15) years to life,” with the “sentence to
run concurrent to [Cuyahoga C.P. No.] CR-268354.” (Bolin Am. Evid. at 24.)
No. 25AP-133 5
{¶ 10} 5. In State v. Walker, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-254824, Walker was charged
with one count of trafficking in drugs, one count of possession of criminal tools, and one
count of having weapons while under disability, with a firearm specification. A certified
copy of sentence dated January 26, 1993 reflects that Walker entered a plea of guilty to
amended charges of one count of drug abuse and one count of having weapons while under
disability, with a nolle prosequi entered as to the remaining count. The common pleas court
sentenced Walker to a “term of eighteen (18) months on each count.” (Bolin Am. Evid. at
32.)
{¶ 11} 6. In an opinion rendered on October 28, 1993, the Court of Appeals for the
Eighth District reversed Walker’s conviction in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354 and
remanded the matter for further proceedings.
{¶ 12} 7. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354, Walker was sentenced upon remand in
May 1998 as follows:
Count One, Aggravated Burglary, for a term of 10 to 25 years;
Count Two, Aggravated Robbery for a term of 10 to 25 years;
Count Three, Attempted Murder, for a term of 10 to 25 years;
Count Four, Kidnapping, for a term of 10 to 25 years; Count
Five, Kidnapping, for a term of 8 to 25 years and Count Seven,
Aggravated Murder with a Mass Murder Specification, for a
term of 30 years to life, with an additional three years for a
Firearm Specification to be served prior to and consecutive to
all other sentences. All sentences in CR 268354 are to run
concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the sentence of
15 years to life imposed in CR 269956.
(Bolin Am. Evid. at 68.)
{¶ 13} 8. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354, the common pleas court issued a
journal entry in December 2002 sentencing Walker to “a term of 10 to 25 years base charge
consecutive with 2 years actual incarceration for possession of firearm on counts 1, 2, 3 &
4; 8 to 15 years base charge with 3 years actual incarceration for possession of firearm under
count five; 30 years to life on base charge with 3 years actual incarceration for possession
of firearm under count seven; time to run concurrent between counts but consecutive with
sentence in case CR 269956.” (Bolin Am. Evid. at 121.)
{¶ 14} 9. In an April 19, 2004 journal entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-269956,
Walker was found to have 322 days of jail-time credit.
No. 25AP-133 6
{¶ 15} 10. In a June 14, 2004 journal entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354,
Walker was found to have 163 days of jail-time credit.
{¶ 16} 11. In a September 2, 2004 journal entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354,
Walker was found to have 1,733 days of jail-time credit.
{¶ 17} 12. In a letter dated September 20, 2004 from the bureau to the common
pleas court in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354, the bureau advised that it had “applied 163
days of jail credit and 1,568 days of prison time for a total of 1,731 days of credit to Case
[CR-268354] which is still being served,” and noted that the “application of 1,733 days
prison credit in your case appears to be duplicate prison time that has already been
applied.” (Bolin Am. Evid. at 132.) The bureau therefore concluded that Walker’s “total
credits are 1,731 ([CR-268354]) and 322 ([CR269956]) for total credits 2,053.” Id. The
bureau indicated the credits had been applied to the calculation of Walker’s first parole
hearing, which was scheduled to occur in January 2034. The bureau invited the court to
immediately advise the bureau if its application of jail-time credit was incorrect.
{¶ 18} 13. On February 11, 2011, the common pleas court issued a revised
sentencing entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354. Walker was sentenced to “an agreed
sentence of thirty-three years to life” as follows:
Defendant is sentenced to a term of 10 to 25 years on count 1
with a three-year firearm specification to be served prior to
and consecutive with the base charge in count 1; of 10 to 25
years on count 2 with a three-year firearm specification to be
served prior to and consecutive with the base charge in count
2; of 10 to 25 years on count 3 with a three-year firearm
specification to be served prior to and consecutive with the
base charge in count 3; of 10 to 25 years on count 4 with a
three-year firearm specification to be served prior to and
consecutive with the base charge in count 4; of 8 to 25 years
on count 5 with a three-year firearm specification to be served
prior to and consecutive with the base charge in count 5; of 30
years to life on count 7 with a three-year firearm specification
to be served prior to and consecutive with the base charge in
count 7.
The sentences for the base charges of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and
7 shall run concurrently. All firearm specifications shall merge
at sentencing with three-years mandatory to be served prior
to and consecutive with the base charge in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
No. 25AP-133 7
and 7. Sentence in case number [CR-268354] to run
consecutive to sentence in case number [CR-269956].
(Bolin Am. Evid. at 135.)
{¶ 19} 14. Barbara Pond, correctional records sentence computation auditor and
supervisor for the bureau, submitted an affidavit and a sentence computation letter for
Walker. In the sentence computation letter, Pond stated that Walker’s first parole hearing
is set for February 2024, “which would be seen in [November] 2033.” (Bolin’s Am. Evid. at
5.)
{¶ 20} 15. On January 15, 2025, Walker filed his complaint for writ of mandamus
and an affidavit of prior civil actions.
{¶ 21} 16. Bolin filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2025.
{¶ 22} 17. Bolin’s motion to dismiss was denied by magistrate’s order issued
April 15, 2025.
{¶ 23} 18. On May 22, 2025, Bolin submitted a presentation of evidence.
{¶ 24} 19. On October 29, 2025, Bolin submitted an amended presentation of
evidence.
{¶ 25} 20. Walker did not submit a presentation of evidence or seek to submit any
rebuttal evidence.
II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law
{¶ 26} Walker requests a writ of mandamus ordering Bolin to correctly apply
Walker’s jail-time credit to the calculation of his prison term and to correct the calculation
of his first hearing before the parole board.
A. Purpose of and Requirements for Mandamus
{¶ 27} A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy “ ‘issued in the name of the
state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty.’ ” State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt, 2020-
Ohio-875, ¶ 7, quoting R.C. 2731.01. See State ex rel. Blachere v. Tyack, 2023-Ohio-781, ¶
13 (10th Dist.) (stating that the purpose of mandamus is to compel the performance of an
act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station). In
order for a writ of mandamus to issue in this matter, Walker must establish by clear and
No. 25AP-133 8
convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on
the part of Bolin to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of the law. State ex rel. Gil-Llamas v. Hardin, 2021-Ohio-1508, ¶ 19. “ ‘Clear and convincing
evidence’ is a measure or degree of proof that is more than a preponderance of the evidence
but less than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required in a criminal case; clear
and convincing evidence produces in the trier of fact’s mind a firm belief of the fact sought
to be established.” State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford, 2022-Ohio-295, ¶ 14, citing State ex rel.
Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2013-Ohio-3720, ¶ 14.
B. Analysis
{¶ 28} Walker does not contest the amount of jail-time credit to which he is entitled.
Walker states that DRC and the bureau have “listed the correct amount of jail-time credit
at the 2053 days the court has ordered to be applied.” (Walker’s Brief at 1.) Nevertheless,
Walker contends DRC and the bureau have not applied this credit to his sentence. Walker
has supplied no evidence to support this contention. Instead, Walker relies on his own
calculation of his sentence, which he states is 43 years to life.1 Walker states that
“[d]educting 2053 days from 42 years, with a starting date of November 27, 1991 renders
Relator’s first Parole Board Hearing date to properly be on or about April 13, 2029.” Id. at
3. The problem with Walker’s contention is that the evidence does not support his sentence
calculation.
{¶ 29} As the most recent sentencing entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354 makes
clear, Walker’s sentences for the counts in that case are to run concurrently with each other,
but consecutive to Walker’s sentence in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-269956. In Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-268354, Walker was sentenced to a total prison term of 33 years to life, including
the firearm specification. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-269956, Walker was sentenced to a
term of 15 years to life. When the total sentences in these cases are run consecutively, as
1 Walker incorrectly states that “as found by this Court in denying the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Relator
is serving a sentence of 43 years to life.” (Walker’s Brief at 1.) In actuality, the order denying the motion to
dismiss provided: “Walker’s recitation of the terms of his sentence in his complaint does not match the terms
contained in the purported entries that Walker attached to his complaint in support. . . . When run
consecutively, . . . this results in a total sentence of 48 years to life, not 43 years as alleged by Walker in his
complaint.” (Apr. 15, 2025 Mag.’s Order at 6.)
No. 25AP-133 9
provided under the sentencing entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-268354, this results in a total
sentence of 48 years to life, not 43 years.
{¶ 30} Contrary to Walker’s claims, the evidence submitted by Bolin reflects that
Walker’s credit has been applied to the calculation of his sentence and parole hearing date.
The September 20, 2004 letter from the bureau reflects that credits in the amount of 2,053
days had been applied to Walker’s first hearing date, which was, at that time, scheduled in
January 2034. The sentence calculation letter prepared by Pond reflects that Walker’s first
hearing is currently set for February 2034, “which would be seen in [November] 2033.”
(Bolin’s Evid. at 5.) Therefore, from the evidence in the record, Walker has failed to
establish that Bolin has a clear legal duty to alter the calculation of Walker’s prison term or
the date of his first hearing before the parole board.
C. Conclusion
{¶ 31} For the foregoing reasons, it is the decision and recommendation of the
magistrate that Walker’s request for a writ of mandamus should be denied.
/S/ MAGISTRATE
JOSEPH E. WENGER IV
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as
error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or
legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects
to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b). A party may file written objections to the
magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the
decision.