the ends of justice exception. Error alone, even a violation of constitutional principles, is not sufficient to warrant application of the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18. See Ashby, 33 Va.App. at 544-45, 535 S.E.2d at 185 (explaining that objections based on constitutional principles must be made to the trial court'in order to preserve the issue for appeal). The Virginia appellate courts have held previously that double jeopardy objections must be preserved before they can be considered on appeal. See Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 673, 678, 152 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1967) (finding double jeopardy is “akin” to an affirmative defense and “and if not raised in proper time is deemed to have been waived”); Cardwell v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 563, 566, 507 S.E.2d 625, 627 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, assuming, without deciding, that
holding that a defendant who pleads guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence is not similarly situated to a defendant who contests his charges holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal holding a defendant who pleads guilty without raising a double jeopardy issue  has waived his right to appeal that issue holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal