Order
Jeremy Carter appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Carter raises one point on appeal; he argues that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, renew an earlier motion to sever, or request a mistrial when the prosecutor made a modus operandi argument during closing to compensate for the fact that the State was otherwise unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter was involved in the second of two charged robberies. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Per Curiam: