State v. Starks, 2011 Ohio 2772

Starks was convicted of felonious assault after a mistrial and sentenced to five years in prison.
This Court previously affirmed the direct-appeal conviction in State v. Starks, 9th Dist. No. 25155, 2010-Ohio-5980.
During the direct-appeal pendency, Starks filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief raising ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court denied the petition on September 8, 2010.
On appeal, Starks asserts two assignments of error challenging due process and ineffective assistance, which the Court consolidates and reviews for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel’s performance	Starks asserts counsel failed to file pretrial motions and investigate to impeach credibility.	Starks relies on his own affidavit; record shows counsel’s actions or inactions cannot be proved ineffective.	Assignments overruled; no abuse of discretion.
Pretrial discovery/investigation and res judicata	Counsel’s deficient discovery constitutes ineffective assistance warranting relief.	Claim barred by res judicata; failure to raise on direct appeal cannot be revisited via post-conviction.	Res judicata bars the pretrial- motions argument; petition denied.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata and procedural bar principles in post-conviction)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing post-conviction rulings)
State v. Gorospe, 9th Dist. No. 24111 (2008-Ohio-6435) (Strickland prejudice and performance considerations in post-conviction context)
State v. Houser, 9th Dist. No. 21555 (2003-Ohio-6811) (general conclusory allegations insufficient to prove ineffectiveness)