are readily observed in the transcript that was used for the second direct appeal which undermines his claim that this issue was demonstrably unavailable at the time of his second direct appeal. Appellee’s Brief at 23. In his reply brief, Perryman argues that the State misunderstands the issue, and that “[w]hat made the claim unavailable for direct appeal was the unknown reason for ‘why’ Perryman’s transcript was a mess, which required a post-conviction evidentia-ry hearing to make that determination.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 10. He asserts that during the post-conviction hearing, it was shown that trial counsel did not know about any recording problems in the trial court, the presiding judge did not so inform counsel, and the result is that Perry-man was left with a transc ) (<HOLDING>); Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 726
holding that only issues not known at the time of the original trial or issues not available on direct appeal may be properly raised through postconviction proceedings holding that freestanding claim that the trial court committed fundamental error in giving a jury instruction after deliberations had begun was unavailable in postconviction proceedings holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to prosecutors comments cognizable in postconviction motion since court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error holding that in postconviction proceedings complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal and that it is wrong to review the petitioners fundamental error claim in a postconviction proceeding