find any plain error. Although the record does show that the defendant is black and the victim was white, it does not show that the state exercised any of its peremptory challenges to remove prospective black jurors from the veni-re. The record as a whole simply does not raise an inference that the state was engaged in the practice of purposeful discrimination. Under the plain error rule this Court will ‘notice any plain error or defect in the proceeding under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial -rights of the petitioner.’ (Emphasis added.) Rule 39(k), supra. The defendant cannot successfully ar-güe that error is pla p.2005)(<HOLDING>). In another analogous situation, this Court
holding that trial counsel will not be convicted of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to engage in futile acts holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding that an ambiguous or silent record will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel