Court Opinion

ID: 9567893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:58:48.059421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:21:49.890354
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have considered appellant’s motion for rehearing and adhere to our opinion. We also find appellant’s belated assertion and affidavit to the effect that he raised certain constitutional issues in the motion for new trial unpersuasive. The record contains a document captioned “Notice of Appearance And Motion For New Trial,” which pertinently states: “The Defendant . . . moves the Court for a new trial upon the following grounds, to wit: 1. Because the verdict is contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it; 2. Because the Verdict is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence to support it; 3. Because the verdict is contrary to law, and the principles of justice and equity; 4. Because of the ineffective assistance of counsel.” The motion for new trial does not expressly assert any constitutional errors, and the order of the trial court denying the motion does not contain any express rulings on constitutional issues.
We decline to consider the affidavit attached to appellant’s motion for rehearing. A motion for rehearing or attachment thereto, like a brief, cannot be used as a procedural vehicle for adding evidence or fact representations to the record. Ross v. State, 195 Ga. App. 624, 625 (2) (394 SE2d 418). Moreover, we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that in view of the posture of the record none of the errors asserted by appellant contributed to his conviction.

Motion for rehearing denied.

*338Decided October 5, 1990
Rehearing denied October 19, 1990.
Sinnreich & Francisco, Elizabeth R. Francisco, for appellant.
Edward D. Lukemire, District Attorney, Shelley S. Howard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.