IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----
Frank Lyle Dominguez,
)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
)
(Not For Official Publication)
Petitioner and Appellant,
)
)
Case No. 20050966-CA
v.
)
F I L E D
)
(January 20, 2006)
Gary Heward, et al.,
)
)
2006 UT App 20
Respondents.
)
-----
Second District, Ogden Department, 040905056
The Honorable W. Brent West
Attorneys:
Frank Lyle Dominguez, Draper, Appellant Pro Se
-----
Before Judges Greenwood, McHugh, and Orme.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Lyle Dominguez appeals the trial court's order
dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief as frivolous.
This is before the court on its own motion for summary
disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for
review.
Post-conviction relief is not available on any ground that
was raised on direct appeal or could have been raised on direct
appeal but was not. See Utah Code Ann. 78-35a-106(1) (2002);
Myers v. State, 2004 UT 31,11, 94 P.3d 211. Furthermore, this
court generally will not address issues raised for the first time
on appeal. See Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996)
(noting general rule that "issues not raised at trial cannot be
argued for the first time on appeal"). The issues Dominguez
raises on appeal are barred under these principles.
Dominguez asserts that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel at trial, alleging various errors. His claim for
ineffective assistance could have been raised on direct appeal,
however, because he had different appellate counsel. As a
result, this issue is barred. See Utah Code Ann. 78-35a-
106(1)(c); Rudolph v. Galetka, 2002 UT 7,7, 43 P.3d 467.
Dominguez also asserts that the trial court erred in admitting
testimony that Dominguez was in prison at the time of or before

trial. This issue was addressed by Dominguez's direct appeal and
is thus also precluded from being raised in a post-conviction
petition. See Utah Code Ann. 78-35a-106(1)(b). Finally,
Dominguez asserts his appellate counsel was ineffective because
appellate counsel failed to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness
on direct appeal. However, Dominguez did not assert this issue
in his petition below. Because this issue is raised for the
first time on appeal, it is not properly before this court. See
Monson, 928 P.2d at 1022. Each of the issues raised on appeal is
procedurally barred, leaving no issue for review by this court.
Accordingly, the dismissal of Dominguez's post-conviction
petition is affirmed.
______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
______________________________
Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge
______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
20050966-CA
2