State Of Washington v. Jose Luis Coronado, 74644-8

Background

In 2004, when J.J. was 14, she awoke to Coronado next to her with her pajama bottoms and underwear down and wet; Coronado admitted ejaculating inside her and left a pregnancy test and a note saying he was trying to impregnate her. J.J. later gave a written account to her boyfriend and her mother, who kicked Coronado out.
Years later J.J. reconnected with Coronado; in 2014 the State charged Coronado with multiple offenses based on incidents from 2001 and 2004 and an alleged 2014 assault/attempted rape.
At trial the jury convicted Coronado of second-degree rape for the March 2004 incident (Count III) and deadlocked on the remaining counts.
Coronado, indigent, was represented by court-appointed attorney John Ewers and moved three times to substitute counsel, asserting ineffective assistance and poor communication; the trial court denied each motion after inquiry.
On appeal Coronado argued the court abused its discretion by denying substitution and that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct in closing by (1) arguing Coronado "groomed" the victim without expert evidence and (2) commenting on the absence of defense evidence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying substitution and that, although some prosecutorial comments were improper, the errors were not prejudicial given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to substitute appointed counsel	State: court properly exercised discretion; Ewers competent (implicit)	Coronado: communication breakdown, ineffective assistance, requested new counsel	Denied: no good cause shown; inquiries adequate; conflict minor and counsel competent
Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing Coronado "groomed" the victim without expert testimony	State: argument was a reasonable inference from evidence about Coronado's relationship with J.J.	Coronado: "grooming" is a specialized claim requiring expert support; improper fact not in evidence	Not reversible: first uses not objected to; when objection sustained prosecutor rephrased based on evidence; not improper misconduct
Whether prosecutor improperly commented on lack of defense evidence, shifting burden	State: argued only that no alternative version was presented; permissible to note testimony was uncontradicted	Coronado: comments implied he had duty to present evidence, shifting burden and implicating Fifth Amendment	Some remarks were improper; court sustained objections and instructed jury; errors held not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence
Whether any prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal under harmless-error analysis	State: errors, if any, were harmless due to strong evidence	Coronado: misconduct affected jury verdict and warrants reversal	Affirmed: no substantial likelihood comments affected verdict; conviction upheld

Key Cases Cited

State v. Varcia, 151 Wn.2d 179 (2004) (standard of review for denying substitution of appointed counsel)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (1997) (defendant has no absolute right to counsel of choice; loss of confidence alone insufficient)
State v. Cross, 156 Wn.2d 580 (2006) (three-factor test for substitution: extent of conflict, adequacy of inquiry, timeliness)
State v. Shaller, 143 Wn. App. 258 (2007) (adequate inquiry occurs when court allows defendant and counsel to fully express concerns)
State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (2011) (prosecutorial misconduct requires showing impropriety and prejudice in context)
State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174 (2008) (standard for evaluating prosecutorial comments)
State v. Sundberg, 185 Wn.2d 147 (2016) (prejudice analysis for prosecutorial misconduct; prosecutor may not comment on defendant's failure to present evidence)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (1994) (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from evidence)
State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d 559 (2003) (prosecutor may not assert facts not supported by record)
In re Pers. Restraint of Phelps, 197 Wn. App. 653 (2017) (expert testimony required if State relies on grooming process as proof)
State v. Ramirez, 49 Wn. App. 332 (1987) (prosecutor may note testimony is undenied provided not referring to defendant's silence)