Order

This is an ineffective assistance of counsel case. The appellant argues that his attorneys were ineffective in that they failed to (1) object to a victim’s in-court identification of the defendant; (2) raise as an appellate issue that a photographic line *836 up used by the police was unduly suggestive; (3) cross-examine certain witnesses on their allegedly inconsistent and/or incomplete statements; and (4) interview and call a certain other witness. We hold that the appellant received competent assistance from his attorneys. Therefore, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).