ORDER

David Briggs appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion alleging abandonment by post-conviction counsel. He argues that counsel in an earlier post-conviction appeal abandoned him by failing to file an amended Rule 29.15 motion within the time limitations permitted by the rule, and by filing an amended motion that did not properly assert his post-conviction claims such that it was so patently defective that it amounted to a nullity. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).