(2004). 4 . Ind.Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(3) was amended effective July 1, 2006, to read: “sells, rents, or displays for sale or rent to any person matter that is harmful to minors within five hundred (500) feet of the nearest property line of a school or church.” 5 . The dissent also argues that Zitlaw did not engage in a “performance,” which is defined as "any play, motion picture, dance, or other exhibition or presentation, whether pictured, animated, or live, performed before an audience of one (1) or more persons.” Ind.Code § 35-49-1-7. However, Zitlaw did not make this argument in his Appellant’s Brief. Consequently, this basis for reversing the trial court's denial of Zitlaw's motion to dismiss has been waived. See, e.g., Chupp v. State, 830 N.E.2d 119, 126 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). Waiver notwithstanding, a finding that Zitlaw
holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief holding that defendant waived his blakely claim as issue on appeal by failing to raise it in his initial brief holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief