to which he was pleading, and he misunderstood the relationship between the facts he admitted and the elements of the crime. He also argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, because the trial court misinformed him regarding the legal standard for withdrawing his plea. We address each of these arguments in turn. 14 First, because the issue was not preserved, we reject Ferretti's argument that his taking an antidepressant at the time of the plea hearing rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary. See generally State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11, 10 346 (outlining the preservation rule). Although Ferretti acknowledges the preservation issue, he urges us to consider his argument under the doctrine of exceptional cireumstances. See State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 18, 122 P.3d 566 (<HOLDING>). However, we generally apply this exception
recognizing fundamental error as an exception to the general rule of preservation recognizing exception holding that the exception is applied only in exceptional situations  recognizing exception to preservation rules for fundamental error that is highly prejudicial recognizing exceptional cireumstances as an exception to the preservation rule