[Cite as State ex rel. Anderson v. Chambers-Smith, 2021-Ohio-3653.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State ex rel. Herbert Anderson, : 

 

 Relator, : No. 20AP-429 

v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 

Annette Chambers-Smith, Director et al., : 

 

 Respondents. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on October 12, 2021

 

On brief: Herbert Anderson, pro se. 

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, 

for respondents. 

 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION 

BEATTY BLUNT, J. 

{¶ 1} Relator, Herbert Anderson, has filed this original action requesting that this 

court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondents, Annette Chambers-Smith, Director 

of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("OAPA"), and the Ohio Bureau of Sentence 

Computation ("BOSC"), to correct allegedly inaccurate information in his criminal and 

institutional records that were considered when determining his eligibility for parole and 

to release him from custody pursuant to R.C. 2967.15(B). Anderson also seeks an award of 

costs in this action. 

{¶ 2} This court referred the matter to a magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and 

Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued a decision which 
No. 20AP-429 2 

is appended hereto, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended 

that this court deny relator's requested writ of mandamus. Relator has filed objections to 

the magistrate's decision. 

{¶ 3} We first note that the magistrate's decision was filed June 23, 2021, and 

relator's objections to the magistrate's decision were filed July 23, 2021. Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(b)(i) requires that objections to a magistrate's decision be filed within 14 days of 

the filing of the decision. Furthermore, although Civ.R. 53(D)(5) permits the court to 

extend the time for a party to file objections to a magistrate's decision for good cause shown, 

in this case relator neither sought an extension of time nor presented any argument 

showing good cause for the delay in filing his objections. Therefore, relator's objections 

were untimely. It is well-settled that this court need not address untimely objections to a 

magistrate's decision. State ex rel. Dailey v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 20AP410, 2021-Ohio-1079, ¶ 6 (declining to address objections to a magistrate's decision that 

were filed 31 days late); State ex rel. Keith v. Adult Parole Auth. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 

10th Dist. No. 10AP-663, 2011-Ohio-1195, ¶ 3, citing State ex rel. Rosch v. Ohio Civ. Rights 

Comm., 10th Dist. No. 04AP-340, 2004-Ohio-1625, ¶ 3 (declining to address objections to 

a magistrate's decision that were filed 5 days late). Accordingly, we decline to address 

relator's objections. 

{¶ 4} Having declined to consider relator's untimely objections, we need only 

determine whether "there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of" the 

magistrate's decision. See Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c). After an examination of that decision, we 

have found no error of law or other defect on its face. Furthermore, we note that, as pointed 

out by the magistrate in his decision, respondents submitted with their certified evidence 

an affidavit provided by Charlene Gregory, a correctional records sentence computation 

auditor with BOSC with accompanying documentation which accurately summarizes 
No. 20AP-429 3 

relator's record as it pertains to the number of times relator was previously released on 

parole, which is eight times rather than the nine as stated by the parole board at the 2012 

hearing. Similarly, Gregory's affidavit accurately summarizes relator's record as it pertains 

to the total number of inmate numbers relator has had, which is five numbers rather than 

the seven as stated by the parole board at the 2012 hearing. Thus, the evidence is clear that 

relator's records are themselves accurate and contain no error to correct. 

{¶ 5} Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we adopt the magistrate's decision as 

our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, and we deny 

relator's request for a writ of mandamus. 

Writ of mandamus denied. 

DORRIAN, P.J., and JAMISON, J., concur. 

__________________________ 
No. 20AP-429 4 

APPENDIX 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State ex rel. Herbert Anderson, : 

 

 Relator, : 

v. : No. 20AP-429 

 

Annette Chambers-Smith, Director, et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 

 Respondents. : 

 

M A G I S T R A T E ' S D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on June 23, 2021

 

Herbert Anderson, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for 

respondents. 

 

IN MANDAMUS 

{¶ 6} Relator, Herbert Anderson, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondents, 

Annette Chambers-Smith, Director of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("OAPA"), and the 

Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation ("BOSC"), to correct allegedly inaccurate 

information in his criminal and institutional records that were considered when 

determining his eligibility for parole. Relator further proposes that respondents have a 

legal duty to release him from custody pursuant to R.C. 2967.15(B) and seeks an award of 

costs in this action. 

Findings of Fact: 

{¶ 7} 1. Relator is an inmate in the custody of the Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), currently incarcerated at Richland Correctional 

Institution ("RCI") pursuant to a revocation of parole. 
No. 20AP-429 5 

{¶ 8} 2. OAPA is a state agency with the duty and authority to address inmate 

parole release and revocation pursuant to R.C. 5149.01 et sec. It maintains its principal 

offices in Franklin County, Ohio. 

{¶ 9} 3. BOSC is a division of ODRC which, in conjunction or as a part of the 

Bureau of Records Management ("BORM"), maintains inmate judicial and institutional 

records and, among other functions, computes release dates for inmates. ODRC's principal 

offices are located in Franklin County, Ohio. 

{¶ 10} 4. Relator's most recent incarceration is the result of his 2009 conviction in 

Lake County, Ohio pursuant to a plea of guilty to one count of attempted robbery and one 

count of receiving stolen property, whereupon relator was sentenced to 2 concurrent 18-

month terms. The conduct underlying this conviction also resulted in a revocation of 

relator's parole granted in previous cases. 

{¶ 11} 5. Relator received a parole hearing on April 4, 2012. The parole board 

denied parole and continued relator until April 1, 2015, giving the following rationale: 

Offender serving his 7th number, 9 total paroles, 2 final 

releases, 5 [parole revocations] and 2 [technical parole violator 

determinations]. Poor conduct since return continues with 

additional [institutional violation] tickets since last hearing. 

Offender takes no responsibility for his actions, blames drugs 

for everything but has no [substance abuse program] treatment 

since his return. Due to his extensive criminal history, poor 

supervision history and poor conduct while in prison, he is not 

suitable for release. 

{¶ 12} 6. By letter dated May 12, 2015, relator conveyed a request to BORM for 

copies of his criminal and institutional records in order to correct alleged inaccuracies in 

the documentation relied upon by the parole board. 

{¶ 13} 7. Relator's complaint alleges that on May 12, 2015, he pursued an 

administrative action to correct the allegedly inaccurate information relied upon by the 

parole board. The document cited in support of this allegation is his May 12, 2015 request 

for documents. 

{¶ 14} 8. Relator was again denied parole in 2015 and 2018. 

{¶ 15} 9. Relator again sought correction of the allegedly inaccurate information by 

letter to the OAPA dated September 16, 2019. 

{¶ 16} 10. A previous request for reconsideration by the parole board was denied by 

communication dated May 7, 2018 on the basis that the request for reconsideration did not 
No. 20AP-429 6 

present or refer to relevant and significant new information unavailable at the time of 

hearing. 

{¶ 17} 11. Relator filed his complaint seeking a writ of mandamus from this court 

on September 15, 2020. Attached to the complaint is relator's R.C. 2969.25(A) statement 

of prior civil actions and R.C. 2969.25(C) statement of his inmate account for the period 

March 2 through September 4, 2020. Respondents have not asserted any lack of statutory 

compliance for an inmate action, and the magistrate concludes that relator has complied 

with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. 

{¶ 18} 12. Respondents have submitted with their certified evidence the affidavit of 

Jennifer Clemans, a quality assurance analyst with OAPA, authenticating relator's "Parole 

Packet" as considered by the parole board in 2012. 

{¶ 19} 13. Respondents also submitted as their exhibit B in the certified evidence an 

affidavit provided by Charlene Gregory, a correctional records sentence computation 

auditor with BOSC with accompanying documentation. Gregory's affidavit accurately 

summarizes the documentary evidence as follows: 

On June 20, 1978 Anderson was sentenced in Cuyahoga 

County on case numbers CR24500, CR24411, and CR23869. 

On CR24500 he was sentenced to 4 to 25 years for Aggravated 

Robbery 2911.01 with 73 days of jail credit granted on a sheriff's 

letter. On CR24411 he was sentenced to 4 to 25 years for 

Aggravated Robbery 2911.01 with 76 days of jail credit granted 

on a sheriff's letter. On CR23869 he was sentenced to 4 to 25 

years for Aggravated Robbery 2911.01 with 146 days of jail 

credit * * * granted on a sheriff's letter. All cases were ordered 

to be run concurrently. 

He was admitted to ODRC on June 22, 1978 and given inmate 

number A151920. His maximum expiration date was 

calculated using 4 to 25 years with 73 days of jail credit for a 

max date of April 5, 2003. He was paroled on February 26, 

1981. He was declared a technical parole violator on April 16, 

1981 and was returned to prison on May 21, 1981. 

He went out to court and was sentenced on December 16, 1981 

on Cuyahoga County case CR165603 to 4 to 25 years for 

Aggravated Robbery 2911.01. He was granted 146 days of jail 
No. 20AP-429 7 

credit by a sheriff's letter and this case was ordered to be run 

consecutively with his current sentence. His maximum 

expiration date was then re-calculated using 8 to 50 years with 

219 days of jail credit for a max date of November 4, 2027. 

He was paroled on May 12, 1986 and declared a technical 

parole violator on October 6, 1986. He was restored to parole 

on March 3, 1987. He was given 122 days of lost time by the 

Adult Parole Authority for this time at large with [sic] was 

added to his maximum expiration date. This made his new max 

date March 5, 2028. 

On May 27, 1987 he was sentenced in Cuyahoga County on case 

numbers CR216266 and CR217055. On CR216266 he was 

sentenced to 2 to 5 years for Carrying a Concealed Weapon 

2923.12 and 2 to 10 years for Having a Weapon Under 

Disability 2923.13. On CR217055 he was sentenced to 2 to 5 

years for Forgery 2913.31 and 2 to 10 years for Theft 2913.02. 

Both cases were ordered to run concurrently with the other, but 

were silent as to the parole cases. 

He was returned to ODRC on June 4, 1987 and given inmate 

number A197140. His parole on A151920 was revoked on 

July 27, 1987. Because the new crimes were committed while 

he was on parole prior to Senate Bill 2, and not expressly 

ordered concurrent, the new cases were run consecutively with 

the maximum expiration date from A151920. His new 

maximum expiration date was calculated by adding 2 to 10 

years with 84 days of jail credit to his old maximum expiration 

date, for a new max date of December 10, 2037. 

He was paroled on September 17, 1991 and declared a parole 

violator at large on February 26, 1992. He was returned to 

ODRC on April 28, 1992 and was given 1 month and 15 days of 

lost time by the Adult Parole Authority, which was added to his 

maximum expiration of sentence date for a new max date of 

January 25, 2038. 

He was paroled again on October 22, 1996 and declared a 

parole violator at large on March 13, 1997. He was taken into 

custody on March 21, 1997 and was returned to ODRC on 

June 6, 1997 as a parole violator. He was given 8 days of lost 

time by the Adult Parole Authority for the time at large and this 

was added to his maximum expiration of sentence for a new 

max date of February 2, 2038. He was paroled again on July 3, 

2000. 

On January 2, 2001 he was sentenced in Cuyahoga County on 

case CR399158. He was given eight months for Attempted 
No. 20AP-429 8 

Assault on a Peace Officer 2903.13 F5, and was granted 124 

days of jail credit in the journal entry. 

On January 8, 2001 he was admitted to ODRC under inmate 

number A398408. We added five days of conveyance time to 

his jail credit for a total of 129 days, and calculated his sentence 

as 8 months with 129 days of credit. His parole was revoked on 

the previous Cuyahoga County cases on April 12, 2001 and 

continued until the expiration of stated term on his new 

felonies. Because the new crime was committed under Senate 

Bill 2 sentencing laws and CR399158 was not ordered to run 

consecutively with his parole cases, it was run concurrently 

with his max date. Cuyahoga County CR399158 expired on 

05/02/2001 after which he was eligible for parole on his parole 

cases. He was paroled again on January 12, 2004. 

On June 30, 2004 he was sentenced in Cuyahoga County on 

cases CR04451724 and CR04452455. On CR04451724 was 

given 9 months for Drug Possession 2925.11 F5 and 2 years for 

Intimidation 2921.03 F3. On CR04452455 he was given 2 years 

for Robbery 2911.02 F3. He was granted credit for time served 

on both cases. 

On July 13, 2004 he was admitted to ODRC under inmate 

number A470899. Because he was given credit for time served 

on both cases, we used the dates on the included sheriff's letter 

to determine that he was to be given 70 days of jail credit on 

each case. He waived his Kellogg hearing on August 3, 2004. 

His parole was revoked on the previous Cuyahoga County cases 

on October 6, 2004 and continued until the expiration of stated 

term on his new felonies. Since the new crimes were committed 

under Senate Bill 2 and the new cases were not ordered 

consecutively with his parole cases, CR04451724 and 

CR04452455 were run concurrently with each other and with 

his maximum expiration date. CR04451724 and CR04452455 

expired on April 20, 2006 after which he was again eligible for 

parole on his parole cases. He was paroled again on May 8, 

2006. 

He was declared a parole violator at large on March 30, 2007 

and was restored while at large on May 17, 2007. He was given 

48 days of lost time by the Adult Parole Authority for the time 

spent at large, and this was added to his maximum expiration 

of sentence for a new max date of March 22, 2038. He was not 

returned to prison at that time. He was again declared a 

violator at large on October 12, 2007, but was restored while at 

large on the same day, with no additional lost time assessed. 
No. 20AP-429 9 

On August 4, 2009 he was sentenced in Lake County on case 

09CR000410. He was sentenced to 18 months on one count of 

Attempted Robbery 2911.02 F4 and 18 months on one count of 

Receiving Stolen Property 2913.51 F4 with 62 days of jail credit 

given in the journal entry. The two counts were ordered to be 

run concurrently with each other. 

On August 25, 2009 he was admitted to ODRC under inmate 

number A572384. His new sentence was calculated as 18 

months with credit for the 62 days of jail credit given in the 

entry plus 20 days of conveyance time for a total of 82 days of 

jail credit. His parole was revoked on September 22, 2009 and 

continued to the expiration of stated term on his new felonies. 

Because his new crimes were committed under Senate Bill 2, 

and were not ordered to be served consecutively with his parole 

cases, Lake County case 09CR000410 was calculated as 

running concurrently with his maximum expiration date. Lake 

County 09CR000410 expired on 12/02/2010. 

He is currently incarcerated on his parole cases only with his 

next hearing scheduled for October of 2023. 

Discussion and Conclusions of Law:

{¶ 20} For this court to issue a writ of mandamus as a remedy addressing the actions 

of respondent, relator must establish by clear and convincing evidence that he has a clear 

legal right to the relief sought, that respondent has a clear legal duty to provide such relief, 

and that relator lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. 

Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967). 

{¶ 21} Relator asserts that the OAPA has denied him his clear legal right to a 

meaningful parole consideration that is based upon correct information. Generally, 

prisoners have no constitutional or statutory right to parole. State ex rel. Henderson v. 

Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 81 Ohio St.3d 267-68 (1998). Because there is no such 

right, a prisoner who is denied parole is not deprived of a protected liberty interest in 

instances in which state law makes the parole decision discretionary. Id. at 125. Because 

R.C. 2967.03 makes the parole decision discretionary, the potential parolee may not invoke 

due process to challenge allegedly inaccurate documentation underlying an unfavorable 

decision. State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt, 69 Ohio St.3d 123, 126 (1994). However, in 

State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270, the 

Supreme Court of Ohio did describe a minimal standard in parole proceedings: "inherent 
No. 20AP-429 10 

in the [statutory] language is 'the expectation that a criminal offender will receive 

meaningful consideration for parole.' " Keith at ¶ 21, quoting Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole 

Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-6719, ¶ 25. Examining the parole-related provisions 

of Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-07(B), the Keith court stated as follows: 

The existence of this formal process for considering parole 

rightly gives parolees some expectation that they are to be 

judged on their own substantively correct reports. Requiring 

the board to consider specific factors to determine the parolee's 

fitness for release would not mean anything if the board is 

permitted to rely on incorrect, and therefore irrelevant, 

information about a particular candidate. 

(Emphasis sic.) Keith at ¶ 23. 

Keith further stated: 

However, having set up the system and defined at least some of 

the factors to be considered in the parole decision, the state has 

created a minimal due-process expectation that the factors 

considered at a parole hearing are to be as described in the 

statute or rule and are to actually and accurately pertain to the 

prisoner whose parole is being considered. 

{¶ 22} Relator relies on Keith for the proposition that the parole board in his 2012 

and subsequent parole hearings relied on inaccurate information when it concluded that 

relator had received seven inmate numbers, nine paroles, and two final releases. A review 

of the detailed information submitted by respondent through Gregory's affidavit and 

accompanying documentation discloses that relator was paroled in 1981, 1986, 1987, 1991, 

1996, 2000, 2004, and 2006. Relator, then, was released on parole eight times, rather than 

nine as stated by the parole board at the 2012 hearing. Relator was classed as a parole 

violator at large in 1992, 1997, and twice in 2007. Parole was revoked in 1987, 2001, and 

2004. Over the course of his various incarcerations, relator received at least five inmate 

numbers: 1978, A151-920; 1987, A197-140; 2001, A398-408; 2004, A470-899; 2009, 

A572-384. In sum, the evidence submitted by respondents here, without ruling out the 

existence of additional pertinent occurrences, amounts to eight paroles rather than nine, 

and five inmate numbers rather than seven. 

{¶ 23} The first conclusion that must be drawn from the evidence is that it is not 

relator's inmate record and judicial history that is inaccurate in his OAPA and institutional 

file, but the totals derived by the parole board therefrom. Relator seeks correction to his 
No. 20AP-429 11 

records, yet points to no error in the records themselves, only error in the parole board's no 

doubt laborious review of his extensive criminal and institutional history that led to an 

incidental error in totaling up the various unfavorable occurrences in relator's history. 

Relator, therefore, can show no Keith right to obtain a substantively corrected record, when 

the record considered by the parole board was in fact accurate, or at least relator has 

pointed to no specific error therein. 

{¶ 24} The information cited by the parole board in its decision is globally correct, 

even if the sums drawn from it may—may—not be. The question remains whether the 

parole board, under the totality of the circumstances, denied relator a meaningful 

consideration for parole in its interpretation and evaluation of those records. Respondents 

have a clear legal duty to correct errors in the inmate's records pursuant to Keith, but for 

the parole board's decision itself, relator must show an abuse of discretion in the parole 

board's final determination. 

{¶ 25} The parole board's discretion in parole matters is wide-ranging. Keith at 26, 

citing Layne at ¶ 28. The OAPA's decision to grant or deny parole is an executive function 

involving a high degree of official judgment or discretion and the discretionary authority to 

grant or deny parole release pursuant to R.C. 2967.01 has been delegated by the legislature. 

R.C. 2967.03; Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-17(A) and (B); Henderson at 268; Weatherspoon 

v. Mack, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-1083, 2008-Ohio-2288, ¶ 13. While that discretion may 

"yield when it runs afoul of statutorily based parole eligibility standards," relator can point 

to no legal requirement that would compel his release were the parole board to have 

accepted the figures for parole releases and inmate numbers suggested by relator. Layne 

at ¶ 28. Relator has received meaningful consideration for parole, and the state of his 

judicial record and inmate history do not support any abuse of discretion on the part of the 

parole board in denying parole in the 2012 hearing or subsequent hearings. Relator has no 

clear legal right to correct non-existent errors in his record, nor a clear legal right to be 

released based on the parole board's alleged misinterpretation of those records by the 

parole board at the 2012 hearing. It is therefore the decision and recommendation of the 

magistrate that the requested writ of mandamus be denied. Relator's motion for costs is 

denied. 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 MARTIN L. DAVIS 
No. 20AP-429 12 

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).