claim after the trial and judgment are simply not reviewable on this appeal. In light of the strong presumption of correctness that attaches to a jury verdict and the evidence in support of that verdict, we conclude that this verdict is not “plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust.” The evidence supports the jury verdict awarding Mokrzycki $122,240 in compensatory damages. VII. Propriety of the Punitive Damages Award The jury awarded Mokrzycki $100,-000 in punitive damages, and CEC challenges the propriety of that award. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, we disagree with CEC’s arguments. This Court is bound by a presumption of correctness of the amount of punitive damages rendered by the trier of fact. Shoals Ford, Inc. v. Clardy, 588 So.2d 879, .1979) (<HOLDING>); McWhorter v. Clark, 342 So.2d 903, 905
holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding ineffectiveness cannot be raised for first time on appeal holding that personaljurisdiction challenges not raised in trial court may not be raised for first time on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court