Tucker v. State, 468 S.W.3d 468

Tucker was convicted by jury of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy and two counts of first-degree child molestation targeting B.M. (born 2001) and G.M. (born 2003); sentenced to ten years.
The case was appealed on direct appeal and upheld; Tucker later filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion.
Appointed counsel amended the motion alleging three ineffective-assistance theories: (i) failing to file a motion to dismiss the substitute information in lieu of indictment due to non-specific dates; (ii) failing to cross-examine B.M. and G.M. at trial; (iii) failing to object to expert testimony about grooming.
The motion court held a partial evidentiary hearing only on the cross-examination claim and denied the other two claims without a hearing.
On appeal, Tucker argues the motion court clearly erred in denying relief on all three points; the court affirmatively reasons the counsel’s strategic decisions were reasonable and denies relief on each point.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the substitute information?	Tucker contends non-specific dates invalidated the substitute information.	State asserts time-not-essential and motion would have been meritless.	No error; information valid; no prejudice; no evidentiary hearing required.
Did counsel's decision not to cross-examine B.M. and G.M. constitute ineffective assistance?	Not cross-examining harmed Tucker by failing to expose inconsistencies.	Strategic choice to avoid alienating jury and rely on Mother’s cross-examination; expected testimony would not change outcome.	No error; strategic choice supported; no prejudice established.
Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to grooming testimony by the CAC interviewer?	Grooming testimony was uncharged bad-acts evidence and objection was necessary.	Grooming testimony was admissible background on a sexual-abuse concept and not uncharged acts evidence.	No error; testimony admissible and not a basis for reversible error.

State v. Carney, 195 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (time not of the essence in child sex abuse cases; general time allegations permitted)
State v. Bunch, 289 S.W.3d 701 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (time not of the essence in sex offense cases; charging scope proper)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes ineffective-assistance framework; performance and prejudice prongs)
State v. Sanders, 738 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. banc 1987) (strong presumption of strategy; overcoming requires showing outside wide range of professional conduct)
Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989) (procedural standard for reviewing post-conviction relief determinations)