before this Court. The record reveals that appellant never raised Brady in his motion before the trial court. Under Rule 8-131(a), this Court “[o]rdinarily ... will not decide [an] issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court.” Although Rule 8-131(a) does give the Court limited discretion to address an issue not raised below, I find it inappropriate to exercise that discretion in this case. See Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 328, 893 A.2d 1018, 1042 (2006) (stating that ineffective assistance of counsel claim more properly raised in post-conviction proceeding because, ordinarily, the trial record does not illuminate the basis for the challenged acts or omissions of counsel). Cf. Keeter v. State, 175 S.W.3d 756 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). In appellant’s motion for a new trial, he
holding that defendant must request continuance and present brady complaint in motion for new trial to preserve complaint for appellate review holding brady challenge not preserved because trial court never ruled on complaint holding that because defendant never mentioned brady in motion for new trial appellate court would not consider the issue holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding appellants issue was rendered moot because appellant was given the opportunity to make a record in support of his motion for new trial and appellate court considered that record in disposing of only issue raised in the motion for new trial