[Cite as State v. Dumas, 2022-Ohio-3788.]

Atty. Paul Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Edward A. Czopur, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for PlaintiffAppellee and

Nathaniel Dumas, PRO SE, Lebanon Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 56, Lebanon, 

Ohio 45036, Defendant-Appellant.

Dated: 

October 20, 2022

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. 21 MA 0090

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio

Case No. 11-CR-429

BEFORE:

Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

JUDGMENT:

Affirmed.
– 2 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

Donofrio, P. J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Nathaniel Dumas, appeals from a Mahoning County 

Common Pleas Court judgment overruling his fourth delayed post-conviction relief 

petition. 

{¶2} On February 2, 2012, a jury found appellant guilty of felony murder in 

violation of R.C. 2903.02(B)(D) and aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 

2911.011(A)(1)(C), both with three-year firearm specifications. On February 3, 2012, 

appellant filed a pro se motion for a new trial. His counsel was ordered to file a motion for 

new trial and the court indicated that it would consider all assertions in the motions.

{¶3} On February 6, 2012, appellant was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison 

for felony murder, 10 years in prison for aggravated robbery, and a three-year merged 

prison term for the firearm specifications. Id. The sentences were ordered to run 

consecutively, for a total of 28 years to life in prison. Id.

{¶4} On February 8, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

{¶5} The trial court denied the motions for new trial on March 8, 2012.

{¶6} On September 2, 2014, appellant filed a motion to dismiss indictment and 

sought to vacate his conviction and sentence. On September 15, 2014, the trial court 

construed appellant’s motion as a post-conviction relief petition under R.C. 2953.21, citing 

our caselaw in doing so. The court dismissed appellant’s petition, finding that appellant 

had untimely filed his petition and failed to adequately explain why he had done so. 

{¶7} On May 22, 2015, appellant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a delayed 

petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.23. On June 5, 2015, the trial court 

denied the petition, as well as other motions filed by appellant. 

{¶8} On June 10, 2015, appellant filed a pro se Rule 60(B)(5) motion for relief 

from judgment. The court construed this filing as a motion for leave to file a delayed postconviction petition and denied the motion on July 6, 2015.

{¶9} On June 29, 2015, we found that appellant’s assignments of error in his 

direct appeal lacked merit and we affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence. State 

v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 31, 2015-Ohio-2683. Appellant appealed our 

decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, and that Court denied review of his delayed motion 
– 3 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

for leave to file a delayed appeal without opinion. State v. Dumas, 143 Ohio St.3d 1498, 

2015-Ohio-4468, 39 N.E.3d 1269 (Table). 

{¶10} On July 13, 2015, appellant filed a pro se application for reconsideration 

under App.R. 26(B), asserting that the trial court erred in finding that no speedy trial 

motion was filed prior to trial. We denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration, finding 

again that he did not file a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds with the trial court, 

and thus, there was no error in the decision. 

{¶11} On June 29, 2016, we overruled an App.R. 26(B) application filed by 

appellant to reopen his appeal. State v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 0031, 

2016-Ohio-4799. We also dismissed a Writ of Mandamus that appellant filed against his 

trial counsel, appellate counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court judge. Dumas v. 

Carfolo, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0065, 2016-Ohio-4820.

{¶12} Appellant appealed the June 5, 2015 trial court denial of his motion for 

leave to file a delayed petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.23. 

{¶13} Appellant also filed a federal civil rights action against the Mahoning 

County Common Pleas Court judge who denied his post-judgment motion in his state 

case and against others involved in the case, but the federal court dismissed that case. 

Dumas v. Christian, N.D.Ohio No. 416CV1705, 2016 WL 4566612 (Aug. 31, 2016).

{¶14} On February 24, 2017, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that the 

delayed post-conviction relief petition was untimely filed without adequate reason. State 

v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0101, 2017-Ohio-731. Appellant had asserted 

that videotaped witness statements existed which provided evidence that a number of 

witnesses perjured themselves. Appellant contended that without the testimony of these 

witnesses, insufficient evidence existed to support his convictions. He also asserted the 

ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. We held that the trial court correctly found that 

appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief was untimely filed and he provided no 

reasons to excuse his untimely filing pursuant to R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a)-(b)1. 

1 We also noted in our Opinion that appellant had filed a “Rule 3 Complaint” in the federal district court on 

August 8, 2014. He alleged the same claims that he raised in a prior post-conviction petition. Id. at ¶ 8; 

Dumas v. Carfolo, N.D. Ohio 1:14CV1742. On December 22, 2014, the federal district court dismissed the 

action and certified that an appeal from the decision could not be taken in good faith. Id. On March 13, 

2015, the docket sheet shows that an appeal order from the Sixth Circuit was denied. The docket sheet 

further shows that a writ of mandamus was filed and denied. In re: Nathaniel Dumas, No. 14-4181 (6th 
– 4 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

{¶15} Appellant appealed our decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and on July 

5, 2017, that Court declined to accept appellant’s appeal for review. State v. Dumas, 149 

Ohio St.3d 1466, 2017-Ohio-5699, 77 N.E.3d 989.

{¶16} On July 27, 2021, appellant filed another delayed petition for postconviction relief in the trial court. The trial court summarily denied the petition on August 

6, 2021. 

{¶17} On September 7, 2021, appellant filed in this Court his notice of appeal of 

the trial court’s denial of his delayed post-conviction relief petition. In his appellate brief, 

appellant raises six assignments of error. They are:

I. The Trial Court Abused its Discretion When it Denied Petition 

Without Hearing, For it Clearly Made Out a Prima Facie Case of 

Actual Innocence and Errors of Constitutional Dimension.

II. Detective Martin Violated Appellant’s Fourth Amendment Right 

When He Used Coercive Police Activity and ‘Suggestive 

Identification’ Tactics to Manufacture Probable Cause to Arrest 

Appellant.

III. The Prosecutor Acted in a Manner Inconsistent with Due Process 

and “Knowingly” Violated Brady & Giglio and Other Cumulative 

Errors.

IV. Trial Counsel was Deficient and Had Prejudiced the Appellant When 

He Failed to Ask for a Continuance to Adequately Prepare for Trial, 

as well as Had Committed Other Cumulative Errors.

Cir. March 13, 2015). On September 27, 2016, the Court granted appellant's motion for return of the video 

evidence. The docket reflects that the video evidence was mailed to appellant on October 3, 2016.

 Appellant has additional federal filings concerning the instant case. On December 29, 2014, appellant 

filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the assistant prosecutors in his trial, 

his defense counsel, the trial court judge, the subsequent judge after trial, Daryl Martin of the Youngstown 

Police Department, and appellant’s appellate counsel. Dumas v. Carfolo, N.D. Ohio 4:14CV2828.That 

case was dismissed. Id.

 We further note that appellant had also filed a federal writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 

in the United States District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio. Dumas v. Hooks, N.D. Ohio 

Case No. 4:16CV1871, 2019 WL 4058945 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2019). On August 28, 2019, that Court 

dismissed the federal habeas corpus petition based upon procedural default. Id. Appellant filed an appeal 

of the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but on March 

27, 2020, that Court dismissed his appeal as untimely filed. Dumas v. Harris, 6th Cir. Case No. 20-3076, 

2020 WL 4007073 (Mar. 27, 2020).
– 5 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

V. Once Thomas and Martin’s Testimonies Are Excluded, Then There 

is Insufficient Evidence for Conviction to Stand, as a Matter of Law, 

and Appellant’s Rule 29 Motion for Aquittal[sic] Should Be Granted.

VI. The Jury’s Verdict On all Counts Was Against the Manifest Weight 

of the Evidence.

{¶18} A petitioner must file his post-conviction relief petition no later than 365 

days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the direct appeal of the judgment 

of conviction. R.C. 2953.21(A)(2).

{¶19} If we construe each of the filings that the trial court construed as postconviction relief petitions, this appears to be appellant’s fourth post-conviction relief 

petition. In this case, the transcript was filed in appellant's direct appeal on June 14, 2012. 

Appellant did not file this post-conviction relief petition until July 27, 2021. Thus, this postconviction relief petition is filed well after the filing of the transcripts in appellant's direct 

appeal.

{¶20} The requirement that a post-conviction relief petition be filed timely is 

jurisdictional. R.C. 2953.23(A) (“a court may not entertain a petition filed after the 

expiration of the period prescribed [in R.C. 2953.21]”). Unless the petition is filed timely, 

the court is not permitted to consider the substantive merits of the petition. State v. 

Beaver, 131 Ohio App.3d 458, 461, 722 N.E.2d 1046 (11th Dist.1998) (the trial court 

should have summarily dismissed appellant's untimely petition without addressing the 

merits).

{¶21} If a post-conviction relief petition is filed beyond the time limitation or the 

petition is a second or successive petition for post-conviction relief, R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a)

precludes the court from entertaining the petition unless: (1) the petitioner shows that he 

was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his claim for relief is 

based, or (2) after the time period expired, the United States Supreme Court recognized 

a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to the petitioner and is the basis of 

his claim for relief. The petitioner must then show “by clear and convincing evidence that, 

but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable fact finder would have found [him] guilty 

of the offense of which [he] was convicted.” R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b).
– 6 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

{¶22} Unless the defendant makes the showings required by R.C. 2953.23(A), 

the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider either an untimely or a second or successive 

petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Carter, 2d Dist. No. 03-CA-11, 2003-Ohio-4838, 

citing State v. Beuke, 130 Ohio App.3d 633, 720 N.E.2d 962 (1st Dist.1998).

{¶23} Appellant's post-conviction relief petition was clearly untimely and 

successive. Thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain it unless appellant 

demonstrated one of the two alternatives set out in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a).

{¶24} Appellant has not claimed that the United States Supreme Court has 

recognized a new right that applies retroactively to him.

{¶25} Nor has appellant asserted that he was unavoidably prevented from 

discovering the facts upon which his claim for relief is based. Rather, appellant alleges 

misconduct and error by the prosecution, conspiracy, conflict of interest and 

ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, and misconduct by the trial court. He claims that the 

prosecution and its witnesses, including Detective Martin of the Youngstown Police 

Department, covered up his wrongful investigation, prosecution, conviction and 

incarceration in this case. He alleges that the prosecution lacked direct evidence involving 

him in the crime, “so they had to fix their case to where Detective Martin is on video using 

coercive police activity and ‘suggestive identification’ tactics on” their main witness, 

James Thomas. He contends that the prosecution “tampered” with Mr. Thomas so he 

gave false testimony at appellant’s trial and falsely planted appellant on the scene when 

the crime occurred. Appellant further complains that the prosecution intentionally failed to 

give him the bill of particulars requested before trial, committed fraud by failing to hand 

over an alleged third statement given by James Thomas and suborned Thomas’ false 

testimony at trial. He also alleges that the prosecution knowingly breached its plea 

agreement with James Thomas because Thomas testified falsely when his plea 

agreement required him to testify truthfully.

{¶26} Appellant additionally alleges that his defense counsel conspired with the 

prosecution as to the false testimony, had conflicts of interest with appellant, and was 

ineffective in numerous ways. He also alleges that the trial court denied him due process 

by removing him from his trial, the lack of sufficient evidence if the testimonies of Detective 
– 7 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

Martin and James Thomas are removed, and that the evidence left is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. He further alleges cumulative error.

{¶27} In his “response brief,” appellant asserts his actual innocence and alleges 

that he overcomes any procedural bar for us to consider his appeal because it “would 

have been highly impossible to fully litigate and fully demonstrate” his assignments of 

error. He submits that the evidence that he presents de hors the record strengthens his 

defense and undermines the prosecution’s case, which weakens confidence in the jury 

verdict. Appellant concludes that “rarely in a conspiracy case will there be direct evidence 

of an express agreement among all the conspirators to conspire and circumstantial 

evidence may provide adequate proof of conspiracy.” He states that evidence de hors the 

record in his case clearly demonstrates that the Youngstown police detective, the 

assistant prosecutors, his trial and appellate counsel, and the judge “agreed among 

themselves and with others to act in concert in order to deprive” him of his constitutional 

rights. 

{¶28} Appellant presents in his brief 35 pages of allegations, six assignments of 

error, and an accompanying 17-Page affidavit and exhibits. He also filed a 10-page 

“response brief.” However, in none of these filings does appellant establish how or why 

he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his claim for relief 

is based. Consequently, appellant’s petition was untimely, successive, and does not fall 

under one of the exceptions. Thus, his assignments of error are rendered moot and are 

overruled. 

{¶29} Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s fourth 

post-conviction relief petition. 

Waite, J., concurs.

Robb, J., concurs.
[Cite as State v. Dumas, 2022-Ohio-3788.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error 

are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be waived.

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in 

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a 

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.