ORDER
Dalvin D. Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals from the motion courts judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. On appeal, Johnson argues that the motion court erred in denying his claim that his trial counsel (“Trial Counsel”) was ineffective, because Trial Counsels performance fell below the objective standards of reasonable competence when he failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence of Johnsons age and the issue of adolescent brain development during the sentencing phase of his trial. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
PER CURIAM: