This Court may discretionarily review claimed errors that implicate a criminal defendant's constitutional rights, even if no contemporaneous objection is made, where failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process. State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137-38, 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996) (overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21, 304 Mont. 215, 19 P.3d 817). An appellant who claims plain error must identify a specific constitutional provision that has been violated. State v. Whipple, 2001 MT 16, ¶ 33, 304 Mont. 118, 19 P.3d 228. The power of plain error review is inherent in the appellate process itself. State v. Pizzichiello, 1999 MT 123, ¶ 9, 294 Mont. 436, 983 P.2d 888. Plain error review is used sparingly, on a case-by-case basis. Finley, 276 Mont. at 138, 915 P.2d at 215. When the Court declines to exercise plain error review, it does not decide the merits of the claim. State v. Haagenson, 2010 MT 95, ¶ 10, 356 Mont. 177, 232 P.3d 367.