COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 74152 ACCELERATED DOCKET STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-appellee : : AND vs. : : OPINION WILLIAM HUNT : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-309158 : JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: GEORGE J. SADD, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 For defendant-appellant: William Hunt, #293-255 Box 1812, NCCI Marion, OH 43301 PER CURIAM: -2- This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and the briefs. Petitioner William Hunt pleaded guilty to felonious assault and, without having filed a direct appeal, sought to have the conviction set aside through a petition for postconviction relief. The petition set forth three claims for relief: (1) counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to request a psychological evaluation of petitioner, (2) counsel's ineffectiveness for misrepresenting the terms of and nature of the plea bargain, and (3) the court's failure to inform petitioner that he was pleading to an indefinite sentence. The court denied relief and petitioner's sole assignment of error complains the court erred by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing. The court did not err by refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the first count of the petition for postconviction relief because petitioner failed to carry his burden of submitting evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that the defense was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. See State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107, syllabus. The only evidentiary document submitted to show his mental condition was a letter written by petitioner's brother. The brother wrote, [petitioner's] battle with alcohol has, at times, caused him to act out in an uncontrol- lable manner. When he is not drinking he is a reliable, caring, loving, family oriented man. But his drinking has caused him to experience periods of `blackouts' where he will not remember -3- anything the following day. Instead of supporting petitioner's claim of mental instability, the letter suggested that petitioner's problems resulted from alcohol. Alcoholism is not proof of mental instability. The court likewise did not err by refusing to grant a hearing on the second count of the petition. Petitioner offered no evidence to show that counsel advised him the sentence for the felonious assault count would be definite. 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. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d at 111. Without any kind of proof in the record, petitioner's claims are nothing more than broad assertions of the kind that do not warrant a hearing. As to the third count, we find these claims barred by res judicata. In State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, paragraphs seven and nine of the syllabus collectively state that res judicata will bar a convicted defendant from raising any constitutional issue or claimed lack of due process that could have been raised on direct appeal. Factual matters relating to the plea colloquy could have been raised on a direct appeal from the conviction. Because defendant did not avail himself of the opportunity to take a direct appeal, he cannot now assert any claims relating to his guilty plea in this postconviction proceeding. See State v. Peek (Apr. 18, -4- 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69546, unreported. The assigned error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -5- 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 Court of Common Pleas 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. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .