Court. See State v. Perez, 2002-NMCA-040, ¶ 11, 132 N.M. 84, 44 P.3d 530. Nor does Gabriel request this Court to review his plea agreement for fundamental error, another exception to preservation. See State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111, 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to apply the preservation exceptions when they were not argued on appeal). Under these circumstances, we do not reach the issue of Gabriel’s plea agreement. {26} Gabriel next contends that there are no facts in the record indicating he “helped, aided, or encouraged” the setting of the fire. See UJI 14-2822 NMRA 2004 (listing elements of accessory to a crime). Having been raised for the first time on appeal, the issue is not preserved. See Cockrell v. Cockrell, 117 N.M. 321, 323-24, 871 P.2d 977, 979-80 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Gabriel does not argue that the question is
holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that where the fourth amendment question was raised at trial but not preserved on direct appeal in the state court the defendants failure to raise the issue on appeal in the state courts did not suffice to avoid stone holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing holding that the defendants failure to call the insufficiency of the evidence to the trial courts attention rendered the issue not preserved