on the foregoing, we conclude that Layman’s and Sparks’ sentences are inappropriate. Like Quiroz, ten years of Layman’s sentence should be suspended to probation and five years of Sparks’ sentence should be suspended to probation. IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence Lastly, Sparks argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his felony murder conviction because he did not enter the house. However, Sparks, whose cursory argument is less than a page long, cites no cases in support of his claim. Sparks has therefore waived this issue on appeal. See Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (stating that each argument must be supported by citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on appeal relied on); Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Waiver notwithstanding, we
holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that a claim is waived on appeal when not supported by citation to relevant authority holding that a party waives an argument if the party fails to elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the argument holding when a party fails to provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion the party is deemed to have abandoned the issue holding that an issue is waived when a party fails to provide adequate citation to authority