¶1Appellants Lee Thomas Lynk and Johnny Lee May were indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury in the death of Edward H. Hoolehan. The first count of the indictment charged each defendant with first degree murder. The second count of the indictment charged each defendant with felony (robbery)-murder. The jury by its verdict found appellant Lynk guilty on both counts. He was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment on the first count. The jury found appellant May guilty of second degree murder on the first count and guilty of the second count. He was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment on the second count. Appellant’s belated motion to correct errors was overruled and this appeal follows.
¶2The single issue framed by appellants’ motion to correct errors is whether the verdict of the jury is sustained by sufficient evidence. Upon reviewing appellant’s brief, we find that appellants have wholly failed to present the Court with an argument specifying wherein they believe the evidence is insufficient. It is impossible to ascertain from the *26brief presented whether the evidence is believed to be insufficient with regard to particular elements of the crimes of which appellants were convicted, or whether the evidence is believed to be insufficient in general. In short, appellants have wholly-failed to present this Court with an argument as required by Ind. R. Ap. P. 8.3 (A) (7) in regard to the sufficiency question and pursuant to that rule we deem the issue waived. Finch v. State, (1975) 264 Ind. 48, 338 N.E.2d 629.
¶3While not arguing the sufficiency issue, appellants attempt to have reviewed the admissibility of May’s confession, arguing that it was involuntarily given and was the product of an illegal arrest. Appellant Lynk contends that May’s statement was erroneously admitted because it illegally implicated him. These issues were not presented to the trial court in the motion to correct errors and are also waived on appeal. Ind. R. Tr. P. 59 (G), Ind. R. Ap. P. 8.3 (A) (7). Finch v. State, supra.
¶4Finding no reviewable issue presented, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
¶5Givan, C.J., Arterburn and Prentice, JJ., concur.
¶6DeBruler, J., concurs in result with opinion.