[brief] (Db22-25).  He further argues that the PCR court erred in denying his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to have a forensic expert testify regarding the viability of testing the tire iron for fingerprints and DNA.  (Db25-29).  The State submits that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel on either basis, and thus, the PCR court properly denied his claims.  Accordingly, the State respectfully requests that this Court affirm.  Rule 3:22-10 recognizes the court’s discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition.  State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992).  If a defendant has presented a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in support of his PCR application, the trial court will ordinarily grant an evidentiary hearing.  Ibid.  However, an evidentiary hearing need not be granted “if the court perceives that holding an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court’s analysis of whether the defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief” or “the defendant’s allegations are too vague, conclusory or speculative”.  *State v. Marshall*, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997) (citations omitted).  To establish a prima facie claim of ineffectiveness of counsel to warrant an evidentiary hearing, a defendant “must demonstrate the reasonable likelihood of succeeding under the test set forth in *Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and *United States v. Cronic*, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), which was adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in *State v. Fritz*, 105 N.J. 42 (1987).  *Preciose*, 129 N.J. at 463.  First, defendant must establish his counsel’s performance was deficient, “which requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. ”  *Strickland*, 466 U.S. at 677–89.  Second, defendant must demonstrate the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which requires showing that “counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. ”  *Ibid.*  “Unless a defendant makes both showings [deficient performance and resultant prejudice], it cannot be said that the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. ”  *Ibid.*  Our courts also require that “a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. ”  *State v. Cummings*, 321 N.J. Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999).  Defendants must allege facts “sufficient to demonstrate counsel’s alleged substandard performance. ”  *Ibid.*  Thus, when a petitioner claims his trial counsel inadequately investigated his case, “he must assert the facts that an investigation would have revealed, supported by affidavits or certifications based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant or the person making the certification. ”  Ibid.  Here, defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel on any ground raised below, including those he maintains in this appeal.  Therefore, the State respectfully requests that this Court affirm the denial of his PCR petition.  A.  The PCR court properly denied defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress the tire iron.