ORDER
Nathan Clark appeals, pro se, from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Clark claims the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because the motion court failed to (1) determine three claims contained in his amended pro se Rule 24.035 motion; (2) order post-conviction counsel to amend his Rule 24.035 motion; and (3) determine all claims in his original pro se Rule 24.035 motion and his amended pro se Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm. Rule 84.16 (b).
PER CURIAM: