issues. However, we find Ross’s appellate counsel argument to be waived for lack of cogency. The entirety of his argument on this point is, “Appellate council [sic] failed to raise the substantive issues discussed in summary of arguments section constitutes effective assistance of council [sic].” Appellant’s Br. p. 14. Although Ross is proceeding pro se and lacks legal training, such litigants are held to the same standard as trained counsel and are required to follow procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied. Ross’s argument regarding appellate counsel fails to meet a minimum standard of cogency and we decline to address it further. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8); Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1050 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied (<HOLDING>). Ross’s argument regarding his trial counsel
recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument holding that failure to develop cogent argument waives the issue for appellate review holding that the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion for new trial waives the issues raised for appellate review holding that partys failure to develop issue in argument section constitutes waiver of issue