Pate v. State

Jermaine Cortez Pate ("Movant") raises three points in appealing a judgment that denied his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.1 In point 1, he argues the case must be remanded with directions for the motion court to enter a prior judgment sustaining his amended motion for post-conviction relief. In points 2 and 3, he argues the motion court clearly erred in denying claims that Movant's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. For the reasons that follow, Movant's points are denied, and the motion court's judgment is affirmed.

Background

After a jury found Movant guilty…