This is what the motion was all about.
I misunderstood the first statement. CORRECTION:
I believe the motion was drunkenness as an defense.
I.E. That he came home, drunk, woke up the next morning and couldn't remember what had happened the night before. Now he gets arrested for murder. Since he can't remember, his appeal would be based on if he did it, he can't remember.
I know I'm not saying this correctly. I guess the best way would be to say, he would appeal based on the drunkenness and go for involuntary manslaughter, as he was too drunk and doesn't remember doing it.