ORDER

Warren Shurtz appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an eviden-tiary hearing. Shurtz contends that the motion court erred because his guilty plea was rendered unknowing and involuntary by the ineffectiveness of his plea counsel in that a reasonably competent attorney would have moved for a change of venue in light of pre-trial publicity about Shurtz’s charged crime, and had counsel done so, Shurtz would not have plead guilty but would have insisted on a jury trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).