COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 77805
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
LONNIE BELL                   :    PROCEDENDO
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 17211
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, JUDGE      :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
               Respondent     :
                              :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION   :    MAY 18, 2000
JUDGMENT                 :    WRIT DISMISSED.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator              :    LONNIE BELL, Pro Se
                              No. 378-665
                              P. O. Box 901
                              Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430-0901
For Respondent           :    WILLIAM D. MASON,
                                Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              DIANE SMILANICK, Assistant
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ANN DYKE, A.J.:
     On March 31, 2000, the relator, Lonnie Bell, commenced  this
procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Christopher Boyko,
                               -2-
to compel the judge to rule on a motion for jail time credit.  In
the underlying case, State of Ohio v. Lonnie Bell, Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-369124, Mr. Bell was convicted  of
possession of  drugs,  sentenced to  eleven months  and  received
twenty-six days of jail  time credit.  However, because Mr.  Bell
believed that he was  entitled to ninety-four days of credit,  on
December 23,  1999, he moved the  trial court for the  additional
credit.  In a December 29, 1999 order the respondent granted  Mr.
Bell  sixty-four  days  of  credit.    However,  this  entry  was
interpreted to mean that Mr. Bell was entitled to a total of sixty-
four days of credit. Thus, on February 1, 2000, Mr. Bell moved the
court to clarify that he is entitled to a total of ninety-four days
of jail time credit.  When the respondent did not quickly rule on
this motion, Mr. Bell commenced this writ action.   Moreover,  in
the prayer for relief, Mr. Bell, through the inmate paralegal who
assisted in drafting the procedendo petition, noted that since the
amendment of Cr.R. 32.2, trial judges throughout the state have not
been correctly calculating  the number of jail time credit  days.
Thus, the prayer also asked this court to order all inferior courts
within its jurisdiction to faithfully perform the clear, legal duty
to state the number of jail time credit days or alternatively  to
bring this matter to the attention of the Supreme Court of Ohio so
that it may promulgate an appropriate rule of practice.
     On April 24, 2000, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County
Prosecutor, moved to dismiss on the grounds of mootness.  Attached
to the motion was a copy of a certified, signed and  file-stamped
                               -3-
order in the underlying case granting Mr. Bell a total of ninety-
four days of jail time credit.  On May 2, 2000, Mr. Bell responded
to the motion to dismiss.  This reply admitted that Mr. Bell  has
received that which he originally sought, ninety-four days of jail
time credit.  Thus, that claim is moot.
     However, Mr. Bell vigorously argued for the second claim.  He
asserted  that the  respondent ignored  this claim  and that  the
failure of trial judges to grant jail time credit results in many
prisoners  remaining improperly  incarcerated.   However, a  writ
action is not the proper remedy for such a request.  In  State ex
rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 342,
343-344, 423 N.E.2d 482, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that
       Mandamus  will not  lie  to  remedy  the  anticipated
     nonperformance of a duty. `*** The function of mandamus
     is to compel the performance of a present existing duty
     as to which there is a  default.  It is not granted  to
     take effect  prospectively,  and  it  contemplates  the
     performance  of  an  act  which  is  incumbent  on  the
     respondent when the application is made.' State, ex rel.
     Federal Homes Properties, Inc., v. Singer (1967), 9 Ohio
     St. 2d 95, 96.  *** the writ relators request would  do
     nothing more than order  respondents to comply with  an
     existing statute. It is well-established that `a writ of
     mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of law
     ***.' State, ex rel. Kay, v. Fuerst (1951), 156 Ohio St.
     188.
Thus, Mr. Bell's  second claims is  not well founded.   Nor is  a
request that this court petition the Supreme Court of Ohio for  a
rule, compelling prompt and complete rulings on jail time credit,
a proper subject for mandamus.  Petitioner may do so himself.
     Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, and this case
is dismissed.  Costs assessed against relator.
                               -4-
TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCURS.
                              ANN DYKE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.