[Cite as State v. Dumas, 2023-Ohio-1064.]

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

Application for Reconsideration

BEFORE:

Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges

JUDGMENT:

Overruled.

Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Edward A. Czopur, 

Assistant Prosecutor, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, 

for Plaintiff-Appellee and

Nathaniel Dumas, Pro se, Lebanon Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 56, Lebanon, 

Ohio 45036, Defendant-Appellant.

Dated: March 30, 2023
– 2 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} On November 7, 2022, Defendant-Appellant, Nathaniel Dumas, filed an 

application for reconsideration pursuant to App.R. 26(A). For the following reasons, we 

overrule his application. 

{¶2} On October 20, 2022, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of 

Appellant’s fourth post-conviction relief petition. See State v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning 

No. 21 MA 0090, 2022-Ohio-3788. All of Appellant’s prior filings concern challenges to 

his February 2, 2012 convictions for felony murder and aggravated robbery with a firearm 

specification for which he was sentenced to a total of 28 years to life in prison. See State 

v. Dumas, Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas No. 11-CR-429. Since that time, he 

has filed a slew of motions, appeals, and post-conviction relief petitions. He recently filed 

an App. R. 26(B) delayed application for reopening his conviction on November 17, 2022. 

On January 30, 2023, we overruled this application based on res judicata, explaining that 

we had already determined that Appellant’s counsel was effective on direct appeal. See 

State v. Dumas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 0031, 2023-Ohio-270, ¶ 2. 

{¶3} In the instant App.R. 26(A) application, Appellant alleges the following as 

errors in our October 20, 2022 decision:

1. IT WAS AN OBVIOUS ERROR THAT DETECTIVE MARTIN 

LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST APPELLANT; THE 

COMPLAINT WAS INVALID; AND THE TRIAL COURT LACKED 

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION: IN VIOLATION OF 

APPELLANT’S FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 

RIGHT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 16, ARTICLE 

I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

a. THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE WAS INVALID AND SUCH 

FOUNDATION-LESS CONCLUSIONS STATED THEREIN DID 

NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT AN 

INDEPENDENT PROBABLE CAUSE JUDGMENT UNDER THE 

WARRANT CLAUSE.
– 3 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

b. THE APPELLANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE TRIAL 

COURT HAD A LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION; 

AND SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION CAN BE 

CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME, AND CANNOT BE WAIVED. 

THIS COURT MUST CONSIDER THIS FOURTH AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, 

EVEN IN AN UNTIMELY POST-CONVICTION. 

{¶4} Appellant asserts that we overlooked an “obvious error” concerning his 

allegation that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Detective Martin filed a 

Rule 4 complaint/warrant with no substantial grounds for probable cause to arrest him. 

Appellant contends that the complaint lacked operative facts to establish the foundation 

of the crimes listed in the complaint and no affidavit accompanied the complaint. He 

submits that the municipal clerk issued the complaint and arrest warrant without a 

supporting affidavit and lacked probable cause to issue the warrant. He contends that the 

trial court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine his criminal case. 

Appellant asserts that he can challenge jurisdiction at any time and we must consider this 

assertion, even in an untimely post-conviction petition.

{¶5} App.R. 26(A)(1) provides that:

(A) Application for Reconsideration and En Banc Consideration.

(1) Reconsideration.

(a) Application for reconsideration of any cause or motion submitted 

on appeal shall be made in writing no later than ten days after the 

clerk has both mailed to the parties the judgment or order in 

question and made a note on the docket of the mailing as required 

by App. R. 30(A).

{¶6} App.R. 30(A) sets forth the duties of clerks and provides that:
– 4 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

(A) Notice of Orders or Judgments. Immediately upon the entry of an order 

or judgment, the clerk shall serve by mail a notice of entry upon each 

party to the proceeding and shall make a note in the docket of the 

mailing. Service on a party represented by counsel shall be made on 

counsel.

{¶7} Here, the docket shows that the Clerk of Courts sent our October 20, 2022

Opinion and Judgment Entry to Appellant by regular mail on the same date as the 

Opinion. The Clerk of Courts noted the service by mail on the docket on that date.

{¶8} According to App.R. 14(A), the October 20, 2022 date of the Opinion and 

Judgment Entry do not count toward the timeliness calculation. Thus, Appellant’s time for 

filing the instant application began on October 21, 2022. Appellant therefore had until 

October 31, 2022 in which to file his App.R. 26(A) application. The actual due date is 

October 30, 2022, but that date was a Sunday, so pursuant to App.R.14(a), Appellant had 

until October 31, 2022 to file his application. Further, even if we added three days for 

service by mail under App.R. 14(C), which we have held does not apply, Appellant’s 

application would have had to be filed by November 3, 2022. See State v. Panezich, 7th 

Dist. Mahoning No. 2018-Ohio-3974, ¶ 2, citing Summitcrest, Inc. v. Eric Petroleum Corp., 

7th Dist. Columbiana No. 12 CO 0055, 2016-Ohio-3381, ¶ 4 (citing Peters v. Tipton, 7th 

Dist. Harrison No. 13 HA 10, 2015–Ohio–3307, ¶ 9). 

{¶9} Appellant filed the instant App.R. 26(A) application on November 7, 2022. 

Appellant’s App.R. 26(A) application is therefore untimely. 

{¶10} App.R. 14(B) provides that a delayed application for reconsideration is 

permitted if the moving party can establish “extraordinary circumstances.” App.R. 14(B).

In evaluating whether extraordinary circumstances exist, we consider the reasons for the 

delay in filing and the reasons for the App.R. 26(A) application. Appellant presents 

no reason for untimely filing the instant application. Rather, he reiterates that we failed to 

address the invalidity of Detective Martin’s complaint and arrest warrant and the lack of 

probable cause and supporting affidavit in filing the complaint. He asserts that the 

Youngstown Municipal Court Clerk issued his arrest warrant without the affidavit and the 

“sole evidence” before the Clerk was “Detective Martin’s bare conclusions.” He submits 

that Mahoning County has 6,747 defective arrest warrants per year and the warrants are 
– 5 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

“rubber-stamped” as a matter of course. He further asserts that he recently heard 

negative comments about Detective Martin that support his assertions. 

{¶11} “In order to prevail on an application for reconsideration, an Appellant must 

demonstrate an obvious error in our decision or that an issue was raised that was either 

not dealt with or was not fully considered.” State v. Carosiello, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 

15 CO 0017, 2018-Ohio-860, ¶ 12. It is not a chance to present a new argument to the 

appellate court. State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 0115, 2015-Ohio2095, ¶ 9.

{¶12} We find that Appellant fails to present extraordinary circumstances. 

Appellant is challenging our prior decision, which was based upon Appellant’s untimely 

and successive filing of a delayed post-conviction relief petition. Accordingly, occurrences 

in the Youngstown Municipal Court have no relevance to the decision upon which 

Appellant bases his current appeal. 

{¶13} Further, even if we consider Appellant’s argument, his assertions are 

without merit. While Appellant was originally charged in Youngstown Municipal Court and 

was arraigned there in Case Number 11CRA00720Y, these charges were dismissed on 

April 25, 2011, and Appellant was indicted in the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court 

in Case Number 11 CR 429 on those charges. He was thereafter arraigned in Mahoning 

County Common Pleas Court and, with counsel, waived any defect in time or manner of 

service of the indictment. Accordingly, Appellant’s assertions lack merit and do not 

constitute extraordinary circumstances under App.R. 14(B). 

{¶14} Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s untimely App.R. 26(A) application. 

JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB
– 6 –

Case No. 21 MA 0090

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

 This document constitutes a final judgment entry.