in self-defense or under the influence of sudden passion, but only if he was ineffective for refusing to honor the appellant’s requests to present such strategies. However, as a practical matter, we necessarily will address the first issue in our discussion of the appellant’s claims raised in Points I and II, concerning counsel’s failure to request jury instructions on the issues of self-defense or the defense of others, and the lesser-included offense of second degree assault. This is so inasmuch as any requests by appellant’s trial counsel for the giving of such instructions would have been futile unless the requisite evidence had been introduced first to support the giving of such instructions. Johns, 741 S.W.2d at 775; see also Redeemer v. State, 979 S.W.2d 565, 572 (Mo.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). As such, to fully address the issues raised
holding that trial counsel will not be convicted of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to engage in futile acts holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the failure to raise a futile issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel