score of four for purposes of sentencing. He asserts that his 1992 rape conviction is an element of sections 9793 and 9796, and therefore, the trial court’s use of the 1992 conviction in calculating Johnson’s prior record score constituted “double counting.” Johnson alleges that such “double counting” is a violation of the Sentencing Guidelines and the due process provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution. ¶ 10 We first note that Johnson has failed to provide any argument or authority to support his contention that the trial court’s use of his 1992 rape conviction to calculate his prior record score violated due process. Therefore, we find this portion of Johnson’s argument waived. See Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 451 Pa.Super. 500, 680 A.2d 877 (1996) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 11 Johnson contends, however, that the
holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief holding waiver results if an appellant fails to properly develop an issue or cite to legal authority to support his contention in his appellate brief holding that an issue is waived where the defendant failed to develop an argument in his appellate brief and cited no authority holding an argument waived in part because the party failed to develop it in the district court