State v. Dumas
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 Ohio 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dumas-ohioctapp-2023.