record to evaluate claim in Mississippi

2025Therefore, “‘[i]t is unusual for this [C]ourt to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal,’ because ‘there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.’” Shinstock v. State, 220 So. 3d 967, 971 (Miss. 2017) (alterations in original) (quoting Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (Miss. 2003)).

2021The witness had been “told” the ammunition was Stevenson’s. ¶27. “‘[I]t is unusual for this [C]ourt to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of 10 counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal,’ because ‘there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.’” Shinstock v. State, 220 So. 3d 967, 971 (Miss. 2017) (second alteration in original) (quoting Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (Miss. 2003)). ¶28.

2026This is because we are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Aguilar v. State, 847 So. 2d 871, 878 (¶17) (Miss.

2025“This is because we are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim[,] and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim [on direct appeal].” Aguilar v. State, 847 So. 2d 871, 878 (¶17) (Miss.

2016The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that, where the record cannot support an ineffective[-]assis-tanee[-]of[-]counsel claim on direct appeal, the appropriate conclusion is to deny relief, preserving the defendant’s right to argue the same issue through a [postconviction-relief motion.] Aguilar v. State, 847 So.2d 871, 878 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citing Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 837 (Miss.1983); Edwards v. State, 797 So.2d 1049, 1060 (¶ 30) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)).

2003See Edwards v. State, 797 So.2d 1049, 1060 (¶ 30) (Miss.Ct.

2010“While this Court may consider the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on direct appeal, it is unusual to do so because ‘[w]e are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.’” Wynn v. State, 964 So.2d 1196, 1200 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (quoting Wilcher v. State, 863 So.2d 776, 825 (¶ 171) (Miss.2003)).

2009Considering “the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counself,]” which has been “raised for the first time on direct appeal, ... is unusual” as this Court is “limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Harris v. State, 979 So.2d 721, 729 (¶ 23) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Wynn v. State, 964 So.2d 1196, 1200 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2007)). “[I]f [we] can determine from the record that counsel was ineffective, then it should have been apparent to the presiding judge, who had the duty ...

2023This Court is strictly “limited to the trial record on direct appeal,” id., and there is “insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” 8 McClendon v. State, 152 So. 3d 1189, 1191-92 (¶12) (Miss.

2017"It is unusual for this Court to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal" because "there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim." McClendon v. State , 152 So.3d 1189 , 1191-92 (¶ 12) (Miss.

2019Ordinarily, this Court does not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal “because there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Pustay v. State, 221 So. 3d 320, 350 (¶97) (Miss.

2019Generally, this Court does not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because “there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Pustay v. State, 221 So. 3d 320, 350 (¶97) (Miss.

2025Therefore, “‘[i]t is unusual for this [C]ourt to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal,’ because ‘there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.’” Shinstock v. State, 220 So. 3d 967, 971 (Miss. 2017) (alterations in original) (quoting Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (Miss. 2003)).

2021The witness had been “told” the ammunition was Stevenson’s. ¶27. “‘[I]t is unusual for this [C]ourt to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of 10 counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal,’ because ‘there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.’” Shinstock v. State, 220 So. 3d 967, 971 (Miss. 2017) (second alteration in original) (quoting Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (Miss. 2003)). ¶28.

2021“It is unusual for this Court to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal because there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Johnson v. State, 191 So. 3d 732, 735 (¶13) (Miss.

2019In addition, “[i]t is unusual for this Court to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal because there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Johnson v. State, 191 So. 3d 732, 735 (¶13) (Miss.

2016The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that, where the record cannot support an ineffective[-]assis-tanee[-]of[-]counsel claim on direct appeal, the appropriate conclusion is to deny relief, preserving the defendant’s right to argue the same issue through a [postconviction-relief motion.] Aguilar v. State, 847 So.2d 871, 878 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citing Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 837 (Miss.1983); Edwards v. State, 797 So.2d 1049, 1060 (¶ 30) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)).

2008"Our supreme court instructs that, on direct appeal, the entire record should be reviewed." Id. (citing Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 841 (Miss.1983)).

2016“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised on direct appeal, it should be addressed only when (1) the record affirmatively show[s] ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or (2) the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge.” Collins, 70 So.3d at 1147-48 (¶ 17) (citing Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1101 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)).

2009Considering “the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counself,]” which has been “raised for the first time on direct appeal, ... is unusual” as this Court is “limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Harris v. State, 979 So.2d 721, 729 (¶ 23) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Wynn v. State, 964 So.2d 1196, 1200 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2007)). “[I]f [we] can determine from the record that counsel was ineffective, then it should have been apparent to the presiding judge, who had the duty ...

2019While this Court may consider the merits of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on direct appeal, it is unusual to do so because "we are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim." Ragland v. State , 50 So.3d 1041 , 1044 (¶ 8) (Miss.

2017While this Court may consider the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on direct appeal, it is unusual to do so because "we are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim." Ragland v. State , 50 So.3d 1041 , 1044 (¶ 8) (Miss.

2023However, “it is unusual to do so because we are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Id.

2023Nonetheless, “it is unusual to do so because we are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim[,] and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Id.

2021We address the merits of an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal “only in instances where ‘(1) the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or (2) the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge.’” Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 221 So. 3d 366, 372 (¶19) (Miss.

2018This Court can address the merits of an ineffective-assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal "only in instances where '(1) the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or (2) the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge.' " Collins v. State , 221 So.3d 366 , 372 (¶ 19) (Miss.

2019See Pace v. State, 242 So. 3d 107, 118 (¶28) (Miss. 2018) (“‘It is unusual for this Court to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal[]’ because ‘there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim[.]’”) (quoting Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (¶171) (Miss. 2003))); Rowsey, 188 So. 3d at 497 (¶35).

2018The supreme court reasoned that "there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim." Id. (quoting Wilcher v. State , 863 So.2d 776 , 825 (¶ 171) (Miss. 2003) ).

2025Whether Montoya’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. ¶25. “[I]ssues regarding ineffective assistance of counsel on a direct appeal are not usually considered on the merits because ‘we are limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.’” Waldon v. State, 262 So. 3d 588, 596 (¶29) (Miss.

2019See Pace v. State, 242 So. 3d 107, 118 (¶28) (Miss. 2018) (“‘It is unusual for this Court to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal[]’ because ‘there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim[.]’”) (quoting Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (¶171) (Miss. 2003))); Rowsey, 188 So. 3d at 497 (¶35).

2016We also acknowledge that “[i]t is unusual for this Court to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal because there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Shinn v. State, 174 So. 3d 961, 965 (¶11) (Miss.

2016We also acknowledge that “[i]t is unusual for this Court to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is made on direct appeal because there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Shinn v. State, 174 So.3d 961, 965 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2015) (citing McClendon v. State, 152 So.3d 1189, 1191-92 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2014)).

2016“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised on direct appeal, it should be addressed only when (1) the record affirmatively show[s] ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or (2) the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge.” Collins, 70 So.3d at 1147-48 (¶ 17) (citing Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1101 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)).

2012Harden v. State, 59 So.3d 594, 603-04 (¶ 21) (Miss.2011).

2012Williams v. State, 73 So.3d 1125, 1129 (¶ 13) (Miss.2011).

2009“The standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel claims is the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which requires a showing that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.” Ellis v. State, 952 So.2d 251, 253 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006).

2009Considering “the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counself,]” which has been “raised for the first time on direct appeal, ... is unusual” as this Court is “limited to the trial court record in our review of the claim and there is usually insufficient evidence within the record to evaluate the claim.” Harris v. State, 979 So.2d 721, 729 (¶ 23) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Wynn v. State, 964 So.2d 1196, 1200 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2007)). “[I]f [we] can determine from the record that counsel was ineffective, then it should have been apparent to the presiding judge, who had the duty ...