the United States Constitution. 466 U.S. at 684-85, 104 S.Ct. at 2063, 80 L.Ed.2d at 691-92. I would therefore conclude that the Federal Constitution is the asserted ground for reversal. The most one can say for the majority’s position is that the second of the four Iowa cases cited by the defendant — Hepperle— mentions the right to counsel under both Constitutions. 530 N.W.2d at 739. Therefore, if we do some detective work and read all the defendant’s authorities, we can find a reference to the state constitution in one of them. Yet, I do not believe that an appellant can preserve a separate ground for appeal without arguing or mentioning that ground, just because a court decision cited- by the appellant refers to that ground. See Sanchez v. State, 692 N.W.2d 812, 820 (Iowa 2005) (<HOLDING>). Regardless, the defendant has not urged that
holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived holding class of undocumented immigrants waived their argument that denial of drivers licenses violated the iowa constitution because they failed to examine this claim in their brief and failfed to address any specific application of the language of the state constitution to this case holding that a petitioners failure to address the bias denial of a motion to reopen in the argument portion of his opening brief on appeal waived the issue