No. Direct appeals are limited to the existing record. New evidence, recantations, or details of ineffective assistance of counsel that are not part of the record are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings. Examples include a Motion for Appropriate Relief or a federal § 2255 petition in federal cases, where affidavits, exhibits, and hearings are possible.

Combining record-based appellate issues with claims outside the record can jeopardize both. The standard approach involves pursuing a direct appeal for errors found in the record, and then developing new evidence through post-conviction proceedings after the appeal has concluded. In some situations, these processes may occur in parallel if permitted and strategically sound. Appellate counsel can assist in sequencing and preserving both pathways to avoid waiver and meet deadlines.