on appeal must have first been directed to the circuit court’s attention in some appropriate manner so that the court has an opportunity to address the issue; Stacks v. Jones, 323 Ark. 643, 916 S.W.2d 120 (1996). A party cannot wait until the outcome of a case to bring an I terror to the circuit court's attention. Jones v. Double “D” Props., Inc., 352 Ark. 39, 98 S.W.3d 405 (2003). Quarles v. Courtyard Gardens Health &, Rehab., LLC, 2016 Ark. 112, at 11-12, 488 S.W.3d- 513, 521. This is true even when the issue is constitutional in nature. Plymate v. Martinelli, 2013 Ark. 194, 2013 WL 1932918. Moreover, the appellant must present his or her theory to the circuit court at the earliest opportunity in order to preserve it for appeal. Id.; see Lucas v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 365, 423 S.W.3d 580 (<HOLDING>). Tilley’s' constitutional argument is one step
holding that once counsel was appointed defendant spoke to the court through counsel and thus the court was not required to respond to defendants request for a speedy trial holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding recognizing a defendants right to dismiss retained counsel in favor of appointed counsel holding in situation of appointed counsel that if nonfrivolous issues may exist new counsel must be appointed holding the argument that the state and federal constitutions required appointed counsel in adoption proceeding was not preserved