waived by failing to assert the right in the trial court. Unless that question was raised below, it is not before the appellate court for review — that is, it may not be raised for the first time on appeal because, among other reasons, a defendant cannot participate in a trial and save an objection with which to challenge an adverse verdict”); Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 300-01, 157 A.2d 437, 441 (1960) (citing Rule 885, dismissing the issues of the defendant being deprived of a preliminary hearing and a speedy trial because the issues were not “raised below and they cannot now be considered by this Court”); Howell v. State, 56 Md.App. 675, 678, 468 A.2d 688, 689 (1983), cert. denied, 299 Md. 426, 474 A.2d 218 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1039, 105 S.Ct. 520, 83 L.Ed.2d 408 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Medley v. State, 52 Md.App. 225, 231, 448
holding that under federal rule of appellate procedure 52b plain error in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding pursuant to rule 885 that an appellate court is not required to reach a double jeopardy issue that was not brought in the trial court holding that if double jeopardy clause is not violated because legislature intended double punishment section 7019 is not applicable and merger is not required holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court