Court Opinion

ID: 9776043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:17:06.158163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:33.208787
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR TRANSFER
PER CURIAM:
To his motion for rehearing or transfer the movant attaches a purported copy of his letter to his lawyer on his first Rule 27.26 motion. The letter, written before that motion was decided, urged his lawyer *327to appeal in the case of an adverse result. Therefore, he concludes a rehearing should be granted and the trial court reversed.
Of course, this is a totally ineffective method to present a record for consideration by an appellate court. Aside from that, the movant does not recognize the limitations delineated in the principal opinion. The existence of such a letter does not aid the movant’s position.
In his second Rule 27.26 motion, the movant did not allege he was abandoned on appeal by his first counsel. He voiced no such complaint when that motion was heard and decided. That is an issue not before the trial court. A ground for relief first raised in this court cannot be considered. Ardrey v. State, supra. To do so would in effect permit the movant to use his brief as a third Rule 27.26 motion. This exceeds the salutary restraints placed upon such post conviction review. Branch v. State, supra.
The motion for rehearing or transfer is denied.
All concur.