[¶ 1] Jake Doornek appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of property and two counts of assaulting a peace officer. Doornek argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to sever the trial of the theft charge from the trial of the assault charges, a motion he did not renew at the close of evidence. Doornek failed to meet his burden under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). See State v. Neufeld, 1998 ND 103, ¶ 15, 578 N.W.2d 536 (“Severance is only required when a defendant has made a convincing showing he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a strong need to refrain from testifying in another.”); see also State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240; ¶ 12, 823 N.W.2d 774 (noting that to “constitute obvious error, the error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law”). Doornek also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal. We conclude that sufficient evidence exists in the record to sustain his conviction. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).