COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61329 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION TERENCE BLASSENGALE, : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : AUGUST 27, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-030,314 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: L. Christopher Frey Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Terence Blassengale No. 185-896 P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699-0001 -2- NAHRA, P.J.: The petitioner-appellant, Terence Blassengale, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Blassengale was indicted for aggravated robbery pursuant to R.C. 2911.01 on February 22, 1977. On March 2, 1977, Blassengale was arraigned; at such time, he pled not guilty. On April 28, 1977, Blassengale entered a plea of no contest to the indictment and was found guilty of aggravated robbery. On June 23, 1977, the trial court sentenced Blassengale to an indefinite term of five to twenty-five years of imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by this court on appeal. State 1 v. Blasingale (Feb. 15, 1979), Cuyahoga App. No. 54160. On November 20, 1989 and January 24, 1990, Blassengale filed petitions for post-conviction relief. On January 31, 1991, the trial court denied appellant's petition of January 24, 1990 and issued its findings of facts and conclusions of law. No evidentiary hearing was held. This appeal follows. Blassengale's pro se appellate brief fails to conform to the requirements of the Appellate Rules. Blassengale failed to provide a statement of the assignment of error presented for review. App. R. 16(A)(2); State v. Gall, 65 Ohio App. 2d 57, 415 N.E.2d 1008. Notwithstanding appellant's failure to comply with such rules, we elect to review his appeal on the merits. Blassengale appears to argue that the trial court erred when it dismissed his January 24, 1990 petition for post-conviction 1 Appellant's name, as spelled in his direct appeal, appears to be a clerical error. -3- relief. He maintains that: (1) he was not advised of his "Miranda" rights at the time of his arrest; (2) the trial court failed to read him the charges contained in the indictment or to advise him of his rights at the arraignment; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the arraignment and that counsel failed to make certain that the trial court complied with the requirements of Crim. R. 11 when Blassengale entered his plea of no contest. It is well established that the doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of issues in a petition for post-conviction relief if such issues or errors were or could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104. The issues of whether Blassengale was read his Miranda rights at the time of arrest or whether he was read the charges in the indictment at his arraignment are ones which could 2 have been raised on direct appeal. A review of the direct appeal indicates that such issues were not so raised. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Blassengale's first two arguments under the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, the trial court's docket indicates that Blassengale waived the reading of the indictment at his arraignment. Blassengale's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 2 These issues are ones which could have been raised initially in pre-trial motions and appealed following Blassengale's plea of no contest. Crim. R. 12(B); Crim. R. 12(H). -4- Blassengale was represented by the same counsel on direct appeal as he was at trial. Such counsel cannot be expected to raise the issue of ineffective assistance. State v. Carter (1973), 36 Ohio Misc. 170. However, we believe that the trial court's denial of Blassengale's petition without an evidentiary hearing was proper since Blassengale failed to submit evidentiary materials in support of his allegations of ineffective assistance. In State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 107, 111, 413 N.E.2d 819, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: Before a hearing is granted, the petitioner bears the initial burden in a post-conviction proceeding to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and also that the defense was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. Broad assertions without a further demonstration of prejudice do not warrant a hearing for all post- conviction petitions. General conclusory allegations to the effect that a defendant has been denied effective assistance of counsel are inadequate as a matter of law to impose an evidentiary hearing. Here, Blassengale submitted no evidentiary documents to demonstrate that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. His petition consists of broad, conclusory statements which do not meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing. State v. Kapper (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 36, 448 N.E.2d 823, certiorari denied (1983), 464 U.S. 856; see State v. Poland (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 303, 475 N.E.2d 794. We find nothing in the record to support Blassengale's assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel. -5- As a result of the foregoing, we believe the trial court's finding was proper that Blassengale's petition did not provide substantive grounds for relief and that he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. -6- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SPELLACY, J., and BLACKMON, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .