Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135, 112 S.Ct. 1810, 1815, 118 L.Ed.2d 479 (1992), the Supreme Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment principles of Harper to the pretrial and trial setting for detained defendants. Although the Supreme Court’s announcement in Riggins was perhaps new to the appellant when he filed his third post-conviction petition, Riggins created neither a new nor novel constitutional rule of law. See Riggins, 504 U.S. at 151, 112 S.Ct. at 1823 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (liberty interest recognized in Harper); see also State v. Van Orden, 64-7 N.E.2d 641, 644 (Ind.App. 4 Dist. 1995) (“[T]he holding in Riggins does not apply retroactively to Van Orden’s trial result.” Teague, 485 U.S. at 933, 108 S.Ct. at 1106). Cf. Heffernan v. Norris, 48 F.3d 331, 334 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). But see Giannini v. State, No.
holding that riggins does not present novel constitutional issues holding failure to preserve issues below results in waiver even of constitutional issues holding that an indigent defendant does not have a constitutional right to press issues even if nonfrivolous which counsel in his professional judgment decides not to present holding that steel co does not dictate a sequencing of jurisdictional issues and stating that it is hardly novel for a federal court to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed