It seems to me, and take this for what it's worth from a guy who only reads the opinions and doesn't argue the cases, that a Court would be more likely to seriously consider the appellate challenge of an appellant when he says:
Look here, I lost at trial. I understand that. I'm not going to waste your time by raising every little potential error that I will surely lose on the standard of review or a harm analysis. But here are the three reasons why you should set aside my conviction. Just three. Surely you have the time to consider these three issues. By the way, I have caselaw that backs up my position.In a perfect world, I guess, we would always have three meritorious appellate issues backed by caselaw. Heck, every lawyer out there would settle for just one meritorious issue. Anyway, this post is just me thinking out loud. Perhaps raising 20 appellate issues isn't always best for your client. Perhaps it is.