State v. Dumas

2023 Ohio 270
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 30, 2023
Docket12 MA 0031
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2023 Ohio 270 (State v. Dumas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Dumas, 2023 Ohio 270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

[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, Defendant- Appellant.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Dumas
2023 Ohio 1064 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 Ohio 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dumas-ohioctapp-2023.