sentence [wa]s disproportionate” was res judi-cata. See Lee v. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 804. “[W]e perceive no reason to re-examine the issue [of the proportionality of Lee’s death sentence].” Schofield v. Meders, 280 Ga. 865, 871 (8) (632 SE2d 369) (2006) (declining to re-examine proportionality on habeas corpus). See Davis v. Turpin, 273 Ga. 244 (2) (539 SE2d 129) (2000) (same). The habeas court did not rule on the remaining portion of Lee’s claim. However, as a review of the record shows that Lee failed to assert in his original petition, his amended petition, or his post-hearing brief a constitutional or statutory challenge to this Court’s method of proportionality review as provided in OCGA § 17-10-35 (c), it is waived. See Harris v. State, 114 Ga. 436, 438 (40 SE 315) (1901) (<HOLDING>). See also OCGA § 9-14-44 (stating that the
holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that a question that is not raised or passed upon in the lower court cannot be considered by a reviewing court holding that issues not raised to or ruled upon by the lower court are not preserved for appellate review holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court