not present arguments, the issues are waived for appellate review. Moreover, we agree with the post-conviction court's decision that these issues were available at the time of Douglas' direct appeal and, therefore, were waived for post-conviction review. See Benefiel v. State, 716 N.E.2d 906, 911 (Ind.1999) (waiving as free-standing claims any issues available on direct appeal), reh'g denied, cert. denied 531 U.S. 830, 121 S.Ct. 83, 148 L.Ed.2d 45 (2000). Finally, to the extent Douglas invites us to consider these issues as examples of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we cannot. Because Douglas did not provide arguments regarding these issues, we are unable to evaluate whether Douglas' counsel committed error or whether Douglas was prejudiced thereby. See id. at 911, n. 2 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Douglas waived his claim of
holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that res judicata does not bar a defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a postcollateral proceeding if the defendant was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal or if an actual conflict of interest enjoined appellate counsel from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding a single sentence declaring counsel was ineffective for raising issues on direct appeal is insufficient to avoid waiver of the issue rather to avoid waiver appellant must provide argument regarding why his counsel was ineffective