statute supports the State’s argument in this regard. In Mackey v. State, 329 Ark. 229, 947 S.W.2d 359 (1997), the defendant claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was an habitual offender because the State did not introduce proof of the prior convictions into evidence. The defendant did, however, admit to his prior record in his testimony. Id. The defendant did not object to the trial court’s finding that he was an habitual offender at any time during the trial. Id. The supreme court overturned this court’s decision and held that a contemporaneous objection is required to challenge the existence of prior convictions to establish habitual-offender status for the purpose of sentencing. Id.; see also Friar v. State, 313 Ark. 253, 854 S.W.2d 318 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Withers v. State, 308 Ark. 507, 825 S.W.2d
holding that defendant waived argument as to evidence of his prior convictions for habitualoffender purposes by not objecting below despite defendants argument that his substantial rights had been affected holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived