¶1(dissenting). I would respectfully dissent here.
¶2In light of the facts we have before us in this matter, which are: the defendant had notice of the date of trial with no request for adjournment; defendant’s continued course of deliberately attempting to keep himself out of the jurisdiction of the court; and defendant’s deliberate desire not to cooperate in any way with his counsel, I cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion when he denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment.
¶3As to the withdrawal of counsel issue, this Court has repeatedly said that issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Issues not first presented to the trial court are not properly before this Court. Lindsey v Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co, 90 Mich App 668; 282 NW2d 440 (1979), lv den 408 Mich 924 (1980); Burrill v Michigan, 90 Mich App 408; 282 NW2d 337 (1979).
¶4If, as the majority says, there was a miscarriage of justice, I would conclude that the proper remedy would be a remand on that question. However, from the record we have before us, I find no abuse of discretion.