ERNEST ENGLES v. STATE OF MISSOURI, SD36925

Engles was charged with multiple child-sex offenses alleged to have occurred within a one-year period; the indictment used approximate dates.
The prosecutor told the jury in closing that "time is not of the essence," explaining exact dates need not be proved in child-victim cases.
The verdict directors required the jury to find the acts occurred on or about the dates alleged; the jury was instructed to follow the court’s instructions as law.
Engles did not object at trial to the prosecutor’s closing remark or the specificity of dates, and did not raise those issues in a direct appeal (which challenged only a search/seizure ruling).
In a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion Engles claimed (1) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the closing remark and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for not seeking plain-error review, and also alleged the prosecutor’s remark violated due process; the motion court denied relief.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed: it rejected the ineffective-assistance claims (no deficiency or prejudice) and held the due-process claim was not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 proceeding because it could have been raised on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s "time is not of the essence" remark	Engles: remark misstated law and deprived him of fair trial; counsel should have objected	State: remark was supported by established law in child-sex cases; objection would be non‑meritorious and counsel’s choice was strategic	Denied — counsel’s decision reasonable; objection non‑meritorious; no prejudice
Appellate counsel ineffective for not seeking plain-error review of closing remark	Engles: appellate counsel should have raised the issue on appeal	State: appellate counsel may omit non‑meritorious/unpreserved claims; affidavit shows counsel raised meritorious issues	Denied — failure to raise was not objectively unreasonable or obviously meritorious
Prosecutor’s remark violated due process / denied fair trial	Engles: remark misstated law and deprived due process	State: claim could and should have been raised on direct appeal; not cognizable in Rule 29.15 absent rare circumstances	Denied — claim not cognizable in post‑conviction relief because it was available on direct appeal

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes ineffective‑assistance performance and prejudice test)
Deck v. State, 381 S.W.3d 339 (Mo. banc 2012) (appellate deference to motion court findings)
Anderson v. State, 564 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. banc 2018) (applying Strickland in Missouri and presumption of reasonable counsel)
Barton v. State, 432 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. banc 2014) (failure to object at closing requires non‑strategy and prejudice to prevail)
State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2012) (in child sexual‑abuse cases exact date is not an essential element; time is not of the essence)
State v. Carney, 195 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. App. 2006) (same principle regarding date specificity in sex‑offense prosecutions)
State v. Brown, 337 S.W.3d 12 (Mo. banc 2011) (prosecutor may argue evidence and reasonable inferences)
Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. banc 2019) (Rule 29.15 not a substitute for direct appeal; cognizability limits)