State v. Dumas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Dumas, 2023-Ohio-270.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAHONING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL DUMAS, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 12 MA 0031 Delayed Application to Reopen BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. JUDGMENT: Overruled. Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff-Appellee Nathaniel Dumas, Pro se, #622-439, P.O. Box 56, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, DefendantAppellant. Dated: January 30, 2023 –2– PER CURIAM. {¶1} On November 17, 2022, Appellant Nathaniel Dumas filed a delayed motion for reopening in Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 11 CR 429, pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Appellant was convicted of and sentenced for felony murder, aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm while under a disability, along with corresponding firearm specifications. He was sentenced to twenty-eight years to life in prison. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 31, 2015-Ohio-2683. Appellant's application for reopening asserts ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal. {¶2} This is Appellant's second application for reopening. In our prior Opinion, we determined that Appellant's counsel was effective in the direct appeal. State v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 0031, 2016-Ohio-4799, at ¶ 13. “[T]here is no right to file successive applications for reopening.” State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 179, 2003-Ohio-3079, 790 N.E.2d 299, ¶ 12. “Once ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and adjudicated, res judicata bars its relitigation.” State v. Cheren, 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 138, 652 N.E.2d 707 (1995). {¶3} Appellant's delayed application for reopening is overruled. JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB Case No. 12 MA 0031 –3– NOTICE TO COUNSEL This document constitutes a final judgment entry. Case No. 12 MA 0031

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.