State v. AllenÂ

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-34
Filed: 6 November 2018
Burke County, No. 15 CRS 268
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
CHRISTOPHER ISAIAH ALLEN
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 January 2017 by Judge Daniel
A. Kuehnert in Burke County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22
August 2018.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorneys General Anne
M. Middleton and Daniel P. O’Brien, for the State.
Cooley Law Office, by Craig M. Cooley, for defendant-appellant.
ZACHARY, Judge.
Christopher Isaiah Allen (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment
entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of sexual offense with a child. After
careful review, we conclude that the record is insufficient to enable our review of
Defendant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal without prejudice to his right to pursue this claim
by filing a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court.
Background
STATE V. ALLEN
Opinion of the Court
On 2 March 2015, the Burke County Grand Jury indicted Defendant for sexual
offense with a child. Defendant’s case came on for trial on 4 January 2017. Two days
later, the jury found Defendant guilty of sexual offense with a child. Defendant gave
oral notice of appeal.
On appeal, Defendant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because: (1) Defendant’s trial counsel neither objected to nor moved to edit or redact
portions of prejudicial, inadmissible evidence; and (2) in the alternative, the
cumulative errors made by trial counsel deprived Defendant of a fair trial.
Discussion
Generally, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be considered
through a motion for appropriate relief before the trial court in post-conviction
proceedings and not on direct appeal. State v. Stroud, 147 N.C. App. 549, 553, 557
S.E.2d 544, 547 (2001), cert. denied, 356 N.C. 623, 575 S.E.2d 758 (2002). “A motion
for appropriate relief is preferable to direct appeal because in order to defend against
ineffective assistance of counsel allegations, the State must rely on information
provided by [the] defendant to trial counsel” at a full evidentiary hearing on the
merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. at 554, 557 S.E.2d at 547
(quoting State v. Buckner, 351 N.C. 401, 412, 527 S.E.2d 307, 314 (2000)).
The United States Supreme Court has also advised against reviewing
ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal:
-2-
STATE V. ALLEN
Opinion of the Court
When an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct
appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a
trial record not developed precisely for the object of
litigating or preserving the claim and thus often
incomplete or inadequate for this purpose. Under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674,
104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), a defendant claiming ineffective
counsel must show that counsel’s actions were not
supported by a reasonable strategy and that the error was
prejudicial. The evidence introduced at trial, however, will
be devoted to issues of guilt or innocence, and the resulting
record in many cases will not disclose the facts necessary
to decide either prong of the Strickland analysis. If the
alleged error is one of commission, the record may reflect
the action taken by counsel but not the reasons for it. The
appellate court may have no way of knowing whether a
seemingly unusual or misguided action by counsel had a
sound strategic motive or was taken because the counsel’s
alternatives were even worse. . . . Without additional
factual development, moreover, an appellate court may not
be able to ascertain whether the alleged error was
prejudicial.
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 155 L. Ed. 2d 714, 720-21 (2003)
(emphasis added).
In this case, our review is limited to the record before us, “without the benefit
of information provided by defendant to trial counsel, as well as defendant’s thoughts,
concerns, and demeanor that could be provided in a full evidentiary hearing on a
motion for appropriate relief.” Stroud, 147 N.C. App. at 554-55, 557 S.E.2d at 547
(citation, original alteration, and quotation marks omitted). Particularly where
Defendant’s arguments “concern potential questions of trial strategy and counsel’s
impressions, an evidentiary hearing available through a motion for appropriate relief
-3-
STATE V. ALLEN
Opinion of the Court
is the procedure to conclusively determine these issues.” Id. at 556, 557 S.E.2d at
548. As our Supreme Court has instructed, “should the reviewing court determine
that [ineffective assistance of counsel] claims have been prematurely asserted on
direct appeal, it shall dismiss those claims without prejudice to the defendant’s rights
to reassert them during a subsequent [motion for appropriate relief] proceeding.”
State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 167, 557 S.E.2d 500, 525 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S.
1114, 153 L. Ed. 2d 162 (2002).
Conclusion
Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premature in that the
record before this Court is inadequate and precludes our review of whether
Defendant’s counsel was ineffective and whether counsel’s errors, if any, were
prejudicial. Accordingly, Defendant’s appeal is dismissed without prejudice to his
right to file a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Judges STROUD and MURPHY concur.
-4-