An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA03-701


Filed: 4 May 2004


         v.                        Wake County
                                Nos. 02CRS060456,
TERRY BELL                            02CRS048977-78

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 January 2003 by Judge A. Leon Stanback in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 2004.

    Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Amy Pickle, for the State.

    Michael J. Reece for defendant-appellant.

    HUNTER, Judge.

    Terry Bell (“defendant”) was charged with assault with a deadly weapon upon a government official, felonious speeding to elude arrest, and having attained habitual felon status. A jury found defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon upon a government official and felonious speeding to elude arrest. Defendant subsequently admitted his habitual felon status. After finding two mitigating factors and no aggravating factors, the trial court sentenced defendant to the mitigated range of 80 months to 105 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel has submitted a brief on defendant's behalf in which he brings forward five assignments of error, butpresents no arguments. Defendant's counsel states that he “is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal.” By letter dated 11 August 2003, defendant's counsel advised defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and provided him with the necessary documents to do so. On 18 August 2003, defendant filed written arguments with this Court.
    Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must fully examine the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    In his pro se arguments, defendant brought forward two issues on appeal: (1) prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges; and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
    Defendant argues the prosecutor unfairly used his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner so as to deny him his constitutional guarantee of a jury pool drawn from a fair cross section of the community under the Sixth Amendment. Jury selection was not made part of the record and, therefore, this Court does not have enough information upon which to assess defendant's claim. The appellant has the burden of providing a record which allows the appellate courts to properly review the assignment of error. State v. Shelman, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 584 S.E.2d 88, 95-96 (2003). Because we are unable to determine from the record before uswhether the State's use of its peremptory challenges was systematic exclusion in the jury selection, this assignment of error is overruled.
    Defendant also contends he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The “accepted practice” is to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings, rather than on direct appeal. State v. Dockery, 78 N.C. App. 190, 192, 336 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1985). As defendant's argument “concern[s] potential questions of trial strategy and counsel's impressions, an evidentiary hearing available through a motion for appropriate relief is the [best mechanism to examine and] determine these issues.” State v. Stroud, 147 N.C. App. 549, 556, 557 S.E.2d 544, 548 (2001). Accordingly, we also dismiss this assignment of error without prejudice to defendant's right to file a motion for appropriate relief in the superior court.
    Finally, we note that the lead file number on the judgment and commitment should reflect the file number of one of the two predicate offenses and not the habitual felon indictment number.
    No error in the trial.
    Remanded to the trial court for the following correction to the written judgment and commitment entered 9 January 2003: The lead file number should reflect the file number of one of the two predicate offenses instead of the habitual felon indictment file number 02CRS060456.
    Judges WYNN and McCULLOUGH concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***