ORDER

James Baker appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Baker contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion because: (1) trial counsel incorrectly advised Baker that if he entered a guilty *818 plea to charges of sexual assault and witness tampering he would be eligible for parole after serving a portion of his sentences when, in fact, a conviction for witness tampering renders a defendant parole ineligible, and (2) no adequate factual basis to support his guilty plea to sexual abuse was established. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).