violations, and other issues,” which he does not specify. Id. To the extent that Linnen wanted appellate counsel to raise claims that were not based upon evidence in the record, such claims could not assist him in obtaining reversal of his conviction because claims and matters outside the record cannot be raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., People v. Walker, 152 A.D.2d 644, 645, 543 N.Y.S.2d 171, 172 (2d Dept.1989)) (“The defendant’s claim that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel is based on matters which are dehors the record, which matters are not reviewable on direct appeal. The appropriate remedy is a postconviction motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.”) (internal citations omitted); People v. Brooks, 105 A.D.2d 977, 978, 481 N.Y.S.2d 914, 916 (App.Div.3d Dept.1984) (<HOLDING>) (citing Interstate Window Cleaning Co., Inc.
holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits holding that where record did not substantiate assertion that defendant was arraigned in february 1981 issues premised on the alleged arraignment were not properly before appellate court on defendants direct appeal of his criminal conviction since that court was bound by the certified record on appeal holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim