a urine sample to verify his admission and that the probation office did not present any prior positive drug tests. However, McCain did not present this specific argument to the circuit court. Therefore, it is not properly before this court. See K.W.J. v. State, 905 So.2d 17 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). C. McCain further contends that, because he had diligently reported to his probation officer and had never been asked to submit a drug test, the circuit court should have considered alternative measures before it revoked his probation. Initially, we note that, although he requested leniency during his arguments at the conclusion of the hearing, he never argued that the circuit court abused its discretion when it d m.App.1983), quoting Wright v. State, 349 So.2d 124, 125 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) (<HOLDING>). A trial court abuses its discretion only when
holding that even under an abuse of discretion standard the trial court must    make sufficient find ings of fact and conclusions of law to allow the reviewing court to determine whether a judgment and the legal conclusions that underlie it represent a correct application of the law holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding the district attorney is vested with the sole discretion as to what crimes will be charged and that discretion will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion holding that the grant of an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion but without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court holding that  only a gross abuse of discretion will justify the reviewing court in disturbing the trial courts conclusions 