Court Opinion

ID: 9370690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 16:08:27.890294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:23.101861
License: Public Domain

[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