COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                      COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 83561
 
 
 
STATE OF OHIO                 :      ACCELERATED DOCKET
                              :
          Plaintiff-appellee :
                              :          JOURNAL ENTRY
    vs.                       :               and
                              :             OPINION
JUJUAN NORMAN                 :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    MAY 13, 2004
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Cuyahoga County Court of Common
                              :    Pleas
                              :    Case No. CR-411588
 
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For plaintiff-appellee:       WILLIAM D. MASON
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              KRISTEN L. LUSNIA
                              Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
                              The Justice Center, 9th Floor
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For defendant-appellant:      JUJUAN NORMAN, Pro Se
                              #421791 Man.C.I.
                              P.O. Box 788
                              Mansfield, Ohio 44901
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
 
     This case came to be heard on the accelerated calendar
 
pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1. The purpose of an
 
accelerated docket is to permit the appellate court to render a
 
brief and conclusory opinion. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall
 
Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158.
 
     Appellant Jujuan Norman, proceeding pro se, appeals from the
 
trial court 's denial of his petition for postconviction relief
 
based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
 
Appellant argues in his assignment of error that the affidavit
 
attached to his petition demonstrates counsel failed to present a
 
defense witness whose testimony would have "exonerated"appellant.
 
     Appellant and his two co-defendants all were convicted after
 
a jury trial for the murder of a twelve-year old boy who was struck
 
by a bullet during an exchange of gunfire outside his home. This
 
court reviewed appellant's case and affirmed his convictions in
 
State v. Norman, Cuyahoga App. No. 80702, 2002-Ohio-6043. As set
 
forth in that opinion, "each defendant admitted to firing weapons
 
in the direction of the" victim's home; the defendants were
 
shooting at the occupants of a white car which was moving past
 
their location.
 
     Appellant attached to his petition for postconviction relief
 
the affidavit of Darrell Martin. The record reflects Martin had
 
been intended to be a witness at appellant's trial, but had not
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
been called by any party. In his affidavit, Martin stated he had
 
"seen the shooting incident"in which appellant had been involved,
 
that only the occupants of the white car had fired weapons, and
 
that he saw the three defendants "running in the opposite direction
 
of the [victim's] house seconds before the occupants in the white
 
[car] started shooting."
 
     In denying appellant's petition, the trial court noted that
 
the defense theory had been one of self-defense; therefore, such
 
"testimony would have directly conflicted with the statements given
 
by [appellant] and his co-defendants," and would also "have been
 
inconsistent with the defense theory that was presented to the
 
jury." Appellant thus had not sustained his burden to prove
 
counsel had provided ineffective assistance, since the decision to
 
call witnesses at trial "falls within the purview of trial
 
tactics," and it was reasonable to omit a witness whose testimony
 
was inconsistent with the defense theory of the case.
 
     The trial court acted within its prerogative in determining
 
appellant had not presented "sufficient operative facts to
 
establish substantive grounds for relief." State v. Calhoun, 86
 
Ohio St.3d 279, 1999-Ohio-102, paragraph two of the syllabus. See
 
also, State v. Gammalo, Cuyahoga App. No. 82853, 2004-Ohio-482.
 
Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
 
     Affirmed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                  -4-
 
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein
 
taxed.
 
     The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
 
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court
 
directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into
 
execution.
 
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
 
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 
 
 
 
                                           KENNETH A. ROCCO
                                                  JUDGE
 
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, P.J. and
 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.     CONCUR
 
 
 
 
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R.
22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized
and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.
22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per
App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the
court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of
Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's
announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also,
S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).
 
.