State v. Bubenchik, 2016 Ohio 7289

Massillon police went to Bubenchik's residence on Aug 8, 2013 to check welfare after his estranged wife reported a suicidal voicemail; officers later entered with Bubenchik's parents' assistance.
A gunshot from inside the home prompted officers to scatter; Bubenchik's brother exited the home and was restrained, while Bubenchik fired at officers from a window.
Bubenchik was charged with three counts each of attempted murder and felonious assault with repeat violent offender and firearm specifications, plus one count of having weapons under a disability; a suppression motion was overruled.
At trial (Dec 2013), the jury acquitted Bubenchik of attempted murder as to two officers, convicted him as to one officer for attempted murder, convicted him of felonious assault against all three officers, and found him guilty on the weapon-under-disability count; sentences totaled 48 years.
Bubenchik filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition in Dec 2014, amended it Aug 2015; the State responded Jan 2016 and Bubenchik replied Mar 2016; the trial court denied the petition and motions on Apr 5, 2016, citing res judicata.
On Apr 25, 2016 Bubenchik filed an appeal challenging the denial of an evidentiary hearing; the single assignment of error argued the court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the post-conviction petition.	Bubenchik asserts the petition warranted an evidentiary hearing to develop ineffective-assistance claims.	State contends the record shows no entitlement to relief and the court acted within discretion without a hearing.	No abuse of discretion; denial of a hearing was proper.

State v. Powell, 90 Ohio App.3d 260 (1993) (post-conviction relief requires a constitutional violation; hearing not automatic if record shows no entitlement)
State v. Wilhelm, ? (2006) (abuse of discretion standard for denying post-conviction relief without a hearing)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (foundational doctrine on res judicata and claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Callahan, 2013-Ohio-5864 (7th Dist. Mahoning) (res judicata applies to post-conviction petitions; issues raised or raisable on direct appeal are barred)
State v. Dickerson, 2013-Ohio-4345 (10th Dist. Franklin) (illustrates res judicata and post-conviction limitations)
State v. Coleman, 1993 WL 74756 (1st Dist. Hamilton) (evidence dehors the record must meet threshold cogency (discouraged as a sole basis))
State v. Snelling, 2014-Ohio-4614 (5th Dist. Richland) (issues outside the record may be raised in PCR only if outside-record support)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (syllabus on res judicata and post-conviction relief)
State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 (1976) (context for res judicata limitations)