Holmes v. State

Order

PER CURIAM.

Michael Holmes appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Holmes alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and call two witnesses to testify in his defense and in failing to object to part of the State’s closing argument. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court found that his counsel’s alleged failures did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).