. The State asserts, [Kuhn] has raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Although it appears that those claims have no merit or possible chance of success, [Kuhn] nonetheless must be given the opportunity to present evidence to support his claims. kok ok There is no question that a post-conviction court may issue a judgment on the matter without holding a hearing, should the circumstances of the case permit the ruling. P-C. R. 1(9)(b). However, the record in this case is devoid of any indication that the circumstances permitted a judgment without a hearing. Nor is there any indication that the trial court chose to allow [Kuhn] to proceed by affidavit, deciding his personal presence at the hearing was unnecessary. Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 201 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>) (quoting P-C. R. 1(9)(b)). Given that [Kuhn]
holding that attorneys admission to an element of the offense in the petitioners presence at a deportation hearing was binding on the petitioners holding if the pcr court orders the cause submitted by affidavit under rule 19b it is the courts prerogative to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required along with the petitioners personal presence to achieve a full and fair determination of the issues raised holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on  2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit holding law requires court to consider full record of any evidentiary hearing even if hearing held by different judge