that he was the cardholder). II Clark next contends the trial court imposed an improper sentence. In support, he offers three distinct doctrines: the rule of lenity and fundamental fairness, the single larceny rule, and the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The State contends these arguments were not properly preserved because they were never argued in the lower court. See Maryland Rule 8-131(a) (2008). The sentencing transcript confirms this assertion. Because we conclude that part of the sentence is illegal, it may be corrected at any time. Maryland Rule 4-345(a). That illegality leads us to exercise our discretion to review the entire sentence. See Office of the Governor v. Washington Post Co., 360 Md. 520, 532 n. 3, 759 A.2d 249, 256 n. 3 (2000) (<HOLDING>) A The sentence on Count 4 exceeds the maximum
holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review holding that because the second sentence of maryland rule 8131a  begins with the word ordinarily both the court of special appeals and this court each have independent discretion to excuse the failure of a party to preserve an issue for appellate review holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court