in the record when there is no indication in the record that the act upon which error is predicated ever occurred (ie., the state’s use of its peremptory challenges to exclude blacks). In both Jackson and [Ex parte] Godboltl, 546 So.2d 991 (Ala.1987),] the records were sufficient to show that prima facie cases of purposeful discrimination could be made by the defendants; therefore, those cases were remanded for determinations on the issue under the guidelines set out in Bat-son.” 509 So.2d at 1076-77 (second emphasis added). Thus, the Watkins Court established that when nothing in the record supports the bare allegation that a constitutional violation occurred, a court cannot find plain error. See also White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Brooks v. State, 929 So.2d 491
holding that a batson claim could not be addressed on appeal when the record did not even raise the inference of unconstitutional jury selection holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal