YOUNGSTOWN — Mahoning County prosecutors have asked Judge John Durkin of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to dismiss a motion for a new trial filed by the attorney for Alex Bugno, 35, formerly of Poland, who is serving a 17-year state prison term after being convicted in 2020 for paying three boys to allow him to engage in sexual conduct.

The filing argues that Bugno’s filing, by attorney Rhys Cartwright-Jones, was not filed timely and is “procedurally and factually flawed.” It states the request “fails substantively” because it “failed to establish a constitutional violation with evidence” from outside of the record of the case.

Bugno appealed his convictions to the Youngstown-based 7th District Court of Appeals, but they were affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court later refused to hear an appeal of the appeals court ruling, as did the U.S. Supreme Court.

The new filing asked Judge John M. Durkin to void Bugno’s convictions and grant him a new trial, or to grant Bugno the opportunity to have “constitutional violations” more fully explored through “discovery.”

A filing by Ed Czopur, assistant county prosecutor, states law regarding post conviction relief allows a petitioner “to collaterally attack his or her judgment of conviction on the grounds that ‘there was such a denial or infringement of the person’s rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.”

Bugno’s request for a new trial was filed outside of the deadline of 365 days after the date that the transcript of the sentencing was filed, which in this case was July 21, 2020. Bugno’s request for a new trial was filed Feb. 27, 2024 — 2.5 years late, the prosecution filing states. The 365-day deadline does not apply if the defendant can show that he was “unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely” to obtain a new trial, the prosecution filing states.

The Bugno filing does not give “any reason for the delay in filing his petition” or give any other reason why the late filing should be accepted, Czpour stated.

Furthermore, Bugno’s late filing is also barred by a concept called res judicata, which “dictates that any argument that could have been raised (in an earlier appeal), even if none was taken, is barred from future consideration in a post-conviction petition.”

To overcome that limitation, a petition has to show that the claim “could not have been appealed based on the original trail record,” Czopur stated. Cartwright-Jones’ request for a new trial raised questions about the constitutionality of a 2014 search warrant in the case, but those issues were raised in Bugno’s “direct appeal” to the 7th District Court of Appeals, Czopur stated.

Other issues Cartwright-Jones raised in the Bugno filing, such as alleged prosecutorial misconduct and defects in the indictment, “were likewise available to him” in Bugno’s appeal to the 7th District Court of Appeals, Czopur argued.

There also was not sufficient evidence presented in the petition to support Bugno’s claims that he should get a new trial or other opportunities to reverse his convictions, Czopour argued. “Here there is nothing to support the petition other than a self-serving affidavit,” Czopur stated, adding, “even if the affidavit did present evidence (outside of the record in the case), there is still nothing contained therein that casts any doubt on the verdict.”