PER CURIAM.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Warren M. Wilbert, Judge.
Nicholas Means, of Maughan & Maughan LC, of Wichita, for appellant. David Lowden, chief attorney appellate division, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before GREENE, C.J., MALONE and ATCHESON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Alexander Burtin appeals the district court's denial of his motion attacking sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's judgment.
In January 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement reached in two separate criminal cases, Burtin pled guilty to one count each of possession of methamphetamine and robbery. On March 10, 2009, the district court sentenced Burtin to 30 months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine conviction and 49 months' imprisonment for the robbery conviction. The district court ordered that the sentences were to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to the sentence Burtin was serving in a federal case.
Burtin appealed his sentence in each case, and the cases were consolidated on appeal. In December 2009, this court summarily affirmed in part and dismissed in part under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 56). (Case No. 102,416.) The dismissal was based on this court's lack of jurisdiction to review Burtin's presumptive sentences. Burtin's petition for review was denied May 8, 2010.
On July 27, 2010. Burtin filed a pleading entitled “Motion Attacking Sentence.” In his motion, Burtin alleged (1) trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that if he pled guilty, his state sentences would run concurrently with the federal sentence; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for talking him out of proceeding to trial. On February 2, 2011, the district court held a hearing on the motion at which Burtin was present and represented by counsel. A transcript of the hearing is not included in the record on appeal. Pursuant to the journal entry filed on February 23, 2011, the district court found that Burtin's trial counsel was not ineffective. The district court denied Burtin's motion for reasons “contained in the record of this hearing.” Burtin timely appealed.
On appeal, Burtin does not expressly argue that the district court erred in denying his “Motion Attacking Sentence.” Instead, Burtin argues that his 2009 notice of appeal should be “considered a manifestation of [his] desire to withdraw his plea.” As a remedy, Burtin requests a “temporary remand to the District Court” to allow him to file a motion to withdraw his plea. Burtin also argues that K.S.A. 21–4721(c)(l), which provides that a presumptive sentence is not reviewable by appellate courts, is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine.
As the State points out, Burtin utterly fails to argue any error in the district court's denial of his motion attacking sentence. Therefore, Burtin has waived any argument regarding the district court's ruling from which he appeals. An issue not briefed by the appellant is deemed waived and abandoned. National Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Surety Co., 290 Kan. 247, 281, 225 P.3d 707 (2010).
Even if this court could somehow construe Burtin's brief as containing an argument related to the denial of his motion attacking sentence, Burtin has failed to include in the record on appeal a transcript of the hearing on that motion. When an appellant fails to designate or include a record to support an assertion of error by the district court, we must reject the assertion of error. State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 670, 175 P.3d 840 (2008) (burden on appellant to furnish a record to support a claim of error at the trial court, and without same, the claim of error must fail).
Moreover, the record on appeal does not illustrate that Burtin raised to the district court his argument that his 2009 notice of appeal should be construed as a motion to withdraw his plea. Generally, issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised on appeal. In re Care & Treatment of Miller, 289 Kan. 218, 224–25, 210 P.3d 625 (2009). Although there are several exceptions to this general rule, Burtin does not argue that any of the exceptions apply. Furthermore, Burtin provides no legal authority for his assertion that this court should grant a “temporary remand” to the district court to allow him to file a motion to withdraw his plea. Failure to support a point with pertinent authority or show why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority is akin to failing to brief the issue. State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, 594, 243 P.3d 352 (2010). An issue not briefed by the: appellant is deemed waived and abandoned. National Bank of Andover, 290 Kan. at 281.
As to Burtin's constitutional argument, again, the record on appeal does not show that it was raised to the district court. Constitutional grounds for reversal asserted for the first time on appeal are not properly before the appellate court for review. State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 919, 269 P.3d 1268 (2012). As stated above, Burtin fails to explain why this court should apply any of the applicable exceptions to this general rule. In any event, Burtin is not raising a constitutional argument related to the district court's denial of his motion attacking sentence. Rather, Burtin presents a distinct constitutional challenge to K.S.A. 21–4721(c)(1), which was not implicated in any way in the proceeding from which he now appeals. Burtin's constitutional argument is not properly before this court.
Because Burtin has failed to brief and has therefore waived any argument regarding the denial of his motion attacking sentence and because the issues he has briefed are not properly before this court for review, we will not consider any of Burtin's arguments on the merits.
Affirmed.