Where the defendant-appellant acted prose at trial prosecuting several viable issues for appeal, does the exclusion of the appellant's opinions, requests i.e. inclusion of psychiatrist's testimony, and information as to the preserved issues relevance, by the appellate counsel constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?

Does the defendant-appellant have the right to use, control or provide input or directives to the ice-Appeal?

Where the defendant-appellant filed a timely petition for Re-Hearing of Direct Appeal as issues based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, should proof of ineffective assistance to appellate counsel did not cure any of the issues alleged in the pro-se Appellant brief, were correct as to the refining?

Should not the Appellate Court have explained the reason for denial of the Petition for Re-Hearing?

Whether the exclusion of the appellant's opinions, requests for inclusion of psychiatrist's testimony, and other information as to the preserved issues' relevance by the appellate counsel constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel