assign as error in this case that he was not allowed to be present at or to participate in Barney’s plea hearing. This assignment of error is without merit. Bjorklund also argues that his absence from the hearing on his first motion to recuse Judge Endacott from sentencing was error and violative of his rights to be present and to confrontation. However, we note that Bjorklund’s counsel was present at this hearing and never registered any objection regarding Bjorklund’s absence. Both this court and the U.S. Supreme Court have noted that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make a timely assertion before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it. United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 105 S. Ct. 1482, 84 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1985) (<HOLDING>); State v. One 1985 Mercedes 190D Automobile,
holding that defendant must assert right of confrontation and right to be present at time of alleged violation and cannot claim those rights for first time on appeal holding issues not raised at trial level cannot be argued for the first time on appeal holding ineffectiveness cannot be raised for first time on appeal holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that defendant could not claim error for the first time on appeal by reason of an instruction given at his request