In State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281, 1999 Ohio 102, 714 N.E.2d 905, the court held that a petitioner seeking post-conviction relief is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Calhoun, at 282. The trial court "shall determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief" before granting a hearing on a post-conviction petition. R.C. 2953.21(C). Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(C), a trial court properly denies a post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing if the petition, supporting documents, and court record "do not demonstrate that petitioner set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief." Calhoun, at 291. In Calhoun, at 284, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that, "in reviewing a petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, a trial court should give due deference to affidavits sworn to under oath and filed in support of the petition, but may, in the sound exercise of discretion, judge their credibility in determining whether to accept the affidavits as true statements of fact." The Calhoun court added, "to hold otherwise would require a hearing for every post-conviction relief petition." Id. Factors that a trial court should consider in this determination include, but are not limited to: (1) whether the judge reviewing the post-conviction relief petition also presided at the trial; (2) whether multiple affidavits contain nearly identical language, or otherwise appear to have been drafted by the same person; (3) whether the affidavits contain or rely on hearsay; (4) whether the affiants are relatives of the petitioner, or otherwise interested in the success of the petitioner's efforts; (5) whether the affidavits contradict evidence proffered by the defense at trial. Moreover, a trial court may find sworn testimony in an affidavit to be contradicted by evidence in the record by the same witness, or to be internally inconsistent, thereby weakening the credibility of that testimony. Id. at 285. Additionally, "where a petitioner relies upon affidavit testimony as the basis of entitlement to post-conviction relief, and the information in the affidavit, even if true, does not rise to the level of demonstrating a constitutional violation, then the actual truth or falsity of the affidavit is inconsequential." Id. at 284. In State v. Calhoun (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 373, 18 Ohio B. 429, 481 N.E.2d 624, a trial court sua sponte dismissed an indictment for involuntary manslaughter, erroneously determining that a recent Supreme Court decision held the statute to be unconstitutional. The State appealed the dismissal, and the appellate court found that the statute was not unconstitutional and remanded the case to the trial court. On remand, the defendant moved the trial court to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, as the jury had been impaneled and sworn during the first trial. The Supreme Court of Ohio, relying on United States v. Scott (1978), 437 U.S. 82, 98 S. Ct. 2187, 57 L. Ed. 2d 65, found that retrial is not barred when the dismissal of an indictment is premised on legal grounds since no determination of factual guilt or innocence has been made. Calhoun stated that: In the absence of an acquittal or a termination based on a ruling that the prosecution's case was legally insufficient, no interest protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a retrial when reversal is predicated on trial error alone. The purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to preserve for the defendant acquittals or favorable factual determinations but not to shield from appellate review erroneous legal conclusions not predicated on any factual determinations. Inasmuch as the dismissal was the result of a good-faith trial-type error of the presiding judge, no legitimate interest of the defendant would be sacrificed by retrial. The fact remains that the jury had neither found appellee guilty nor voted for his acquittal. Both the defendant and the state are entitled to have one complete trial which terminates in a verdict on a finding that the state's case is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. Id. at 377. Thus, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that "where a trial judge rules midtrial that the statute upon which an indictment is based is unconstitutionally vague and thereupon dismisses the indictment, double jeopardy does not bar retrial." Id. at syllabus.