He can only appeal on grounds that were raised during trial. Did his lawyers even object to anything? Did they try to prevent the admission of key evidence? Did

He can only appeal on grounds that were raised during trial. Did his lawyers even object to anything? Did they try to prevent the admission of key evidence? Did they raise any points of constitutional law? If not, he might be fucked. Appeals aren't just "the lower court convicted me and I want to try again", they are "the lower court got it wrong, my lawyer brought the point up, but then they ignored it".