When an appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, the claim 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.” Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1101 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). If this Court fails to reverse on other grounds and is unable to conclude that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, we should affirm “without prejudice to the defendant's right to raise the ineffective assistance of counsel issue via appropriate post-conviction proceedings.”

¶ 10. Generally, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will only be addressed on direct appeal when “(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.” Gill v. State, 126 So.3d 128, 133–34 (¶ 27) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (quoting Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1101 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). The question presented is not whether trial counsel was or was not ineffective but whether the trial judge, as a matter of law, had a duty to declare a mistrial or to order a new trial sua sponte on the basis of trial counsel's performance.

When an appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, the claim 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." Colenburg v. State, 735 So. 2d 1099, 1101 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). If this Court fails to reverse on other grounds and is unable to conclude that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, we should affirm "without prejudice to the defendant's right to raise the ineffective assistance of counsel issue via appropriate post-conviction proceedings." Id. ¶21. "In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court will overturn a verdict only when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.

"`Inadequacy of counsel' refers to representation that is so lacking in competence that the trial judge has the duty to correct it so as to prevent a mockery of justice." Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1102 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (citing Parham v. State, 229 So.2d 582, 583 (Miss. 1969)).

¶ 18. "Only in those cases where the Court cannot decide the ineffective assistance of counsel issue on the record presented on direct appeal and in those cases where the judgment of conviction is otherwise affirmed will it be necessary actually to hold evidentiary hearings." Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1102 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (quoting Read 430 So.2d at 842). ¶ 19.

Id. at 841-42 (internal citations omitted). See also Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1101-02 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 40.

DISCUSSION ¶ 6. The State argues that the Court of Appeals erred by not applying its holding in Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). The State argues that on direct appeal "the reviewing court must find that the record supports a finding that the trial counsel was so ineffective that the trial [j]udge had a duty to declare a mistrial sua sponte."

Any review of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is confined strictly to the record. Colenburg v. State , 735 So. 2d 1099, 1102 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). The Mississippi Supreme Court has elaborated on the reasoning behind this restriction:

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should only be addressed on direct appeal when “(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.” Luster v. State, 143 So.3d 636, 642 (¶ 23) (Miss.Ct.App.2014) (quoting Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1101 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). “Review of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal is ‘confined strictly to the record.’ ”

When a claim of ineffective assistance is raised on direct appeal, we will only consider its merits under two circumstances—(1) where the parties have stipulated the record is adequate for us to make an independent finding or (2) where “the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions[.]” Gill v. State, 126 So.3d 128, 133–34 (¶ 27) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (quoting Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1101 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). In other words, the record must show counsel's performance was so constitutionally deficient and prejudicial that the trial court should have declared a mistrial sua sponte.