with him. At oral argument before this Court, Thomas asserted that the overarching claim in his application for post-conviction relief was a failure by his trial counsel to communicate with him. Thomas asserts that he mailed three letters to his attorney during three consecutive months and never received a response. Thomas’s letters requested discovery from his attorney and asked his attorney to file various motions on his behalf. The state asserts that, because Thomas’s amended petition does not contain a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to communicate and because that claim is not addressed in the district court’s opinion, Thomas is precluded from raising it before this court. Fox v. State, 125 Idaho 672, 676-77, 873 P.2d 926, 930-31 (Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). For the purpose of this opinion, we will
holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal