With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". materials which demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness. State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 413 N.E.2d 819, syllabus. Absent such a showing, no eviden-tiary hearing is necessary. State v. Pankey (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 58, 59, 428 N.E.2d 413. In this instance, no evidentiary materials were submitted to demonstrate that errors occurred or that prejudice resulted. The trial court therefore did not err in denying these claims without holding a hearing. These assignments of error are therefore without merit. State v. Taylor, No. 75352, 1999 WL 1044602, **3-4 (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 18, 1999). Because of petitioner’s failure, this claim is procedurally defaulted. See Lorraine v. Coyle, 291 F.3d 416, 426-27 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner acknowledges the default but

A: holding that it would be inappropriate to predict whether state law would foreclose state postconviction review of the petitioners habeas claim where the state permitted second or successive state petitions when the procedural bar would result in fundamental injustice
B: holding that substantive review is adequate
C: holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar
D: holding state rule barring review of postconviction petitioners claims where petitioner failed to provide supporting documentation is adequate procedural ground on which to bar federal habeas review
D.