He contends that his appellate counsel failed to argue that Goldsmith's trial counsel was ineffective and failed to request the complete record on appeal. However, this assignment of error is premature because Goldsmith's claim involves representation that is still ongoing and pending before this Court. See Ratliff v. State, 162 So.3d 842, 844 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2014). Addressing this issue at this stage would be improper because Goldsmith has yet to suffer the alleged prejudice that he complains of, pending the outcome of this appeal. Seeid.
Accordingly, Johnson's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails. In Ratliff v. State, 162 So.3d 842 (Miss.Ct.App.2014), cert. denied, 163 So.3d 301 (Miss.2015), we held that a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was premature and not ripe for review on direct appeal. See id. at 848–49 (¶¶ 27–31). There, however, the issue was counsel's alleged failure to consult and communicate with the defendant.