State v. Corona

• Docket Number: 20221117-CA
• Decision Date: 26 June 2025
• Citation: State v. Corona, 2025 UT App 93, 20221117-CA (Utah App. Jun 26, 2025)
• Parties: State of Utah, Appellee, v. Marco Antonio Corona, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

1

2025 UT App 93

State of Utah, Appellee, v. Marco Antonio Corona, Appellant.

No. 20221117-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

June 26, 2025

Fourth District Court, Provo Department The Honorable Kraig PowellNo. 211400191

Freyja Johnson, Rachel Phillips Ainscough, and Anna Grigsby Attorneys for Appellant

Derek E. Brown and Emily Sopp, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge David N. Mortensen authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Amy J. Oliver concurred.

MORTENSEN, JUDGE

¶1 Finding that he sexually abused the eleven-year-old daughter of his cousin's girlfriend, a jury convicted Marco Antonio Corona of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child.The abuse occurred after a party where many of the adults, including Corona, were drinking.Corona appeals his convictions, raising two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.Corona first alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict or to arrest judgment, asserting insufficient evidence on a theory of inherent improbability.He next claims ineffective assistance for his counsel's failure to object to certain statements by the child's mother, which Corona claims were unfairly prejudicial.We reject these claims and affirm Corona's convictions.

BACKGROUND^[1]

¶2 One summer evening, Corona, his girlfriend, and their children attended a party.The gathering was hosted at the home of Corona's cousin (Cousin), who lived with his girlfriend (Mother) and her older children, including eleven-year-old Rita.^[2]Corona and many of the other adults in attendance that evening were drinking.The drinking eventually led to an argument between Mother and Cousin.Cousin left with one of his children.Later, Rita and Mother also got into an argument.

¶3 At some point that evening, Rita ended up in her room crying.Corona went into Rita's room.Corona's daughter (Daughter), who was near Rita's age, was in the room initially, but Corona made her leave.Corona then asked Rita if she knew how girls got pregnant.Corona then got on the bed with Rita and lay next to or on top of her such that she"couldn't push him off."Corona "put his hand on [Rita's] breast," grabbing it and "squishing it," causing Rita to cry in pain.Corona then put his hand underneath Rita's pants on her pubic area.Rita said that she could tell "he was going to put it lower" but that, when he tried to do so, she yelled for Daughter.Corona responded by quickly removing his hand from her pants, and she escaped from him and fled the room.

¶4 At some point after Rita escaped from her room, her aunt (Aunt) arrived to pick her up from the house.Rita went outside to meet Aunt, and Corona was running after her "grabbing her," and "trying to hold her back."Rita was crying, and Aunt attempted to "separate them."Rita and Aunt went inside to pack her things, but Corona followed them and continued to call after Rita, telling her to stay there.

¶5 Aunt drove Rita back to her home.All the while, Rita "was crying."Aunt asked Rita if "she was okay" and "if anything had happened to her," but Rita "denied everything" until they were nearing Aunt's home.At that point, Rita "started crying again" and "asked [Aunt] where babies came from."This caused Aunt some concern, so she continued asking Rita what had happened, but Rita did not disclose anything at that point; Aunt told her to "try to get some sleep."Eventually, Rita told Aunt and Mother about the incident.Mother reported the incident to the police.

¶6 Rita was taken to a Children's Justice Center (CJC) where she was interviewed about the incident.During that interview, Rita explained the story summarized above, but she also stated that Corona "ended up slapping" her.She further stated that she regarded Corona as her "uncle . . . because he's like family."

¶7 Corona was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child.At trial, the State presented the evidence summarized above.The State called several witnesses, including Aunt, Mother, Corona's girlfriend, Daughter, and Rita.Corona testified in his defense, along with his brother, who had been present at the party.

¶8 Rita testified that she had lied during her CJC interview about Corona slapping her.She explained that she said this only because she"felt rushed" and like she"needed to give a specific answer."Her entire CJC interview was then played for the jury.On cross-examination, Corona's defense counsel(Counsel) highlighted some confusing statements and inconsistencies contained in Rita's testimony and her CJC interview, including whether Corona pushed Daughter out of the room or just told her to leave; where Corona was and how he was positioned during the abuse; and what happened after the alleged abuse, whether Daughter came running into the room when Rita called for her or whether Rita fled out of the room.

¶9Mother testified that she was "[u]pset and angry" when she found out what Corona did to Rita.She was upset that she"wasn't there for [Rita] to protect her."She explained, "[W]e considered [Corona] like part of the family, and then, you know, to find out that he would do such a thing like that, knowing that he also has a daughter kind of around the same age."

¶10 The jury convicted Corona as charged.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶11 Corona appeals, raising two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel."A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law."State v. Higley, 2020 UT App 45, ¶ 12, 463 P.3d 77.

ANALYSIS

¶12 Corona claims Counsel provided ineffective assistance in two ways: first, by failing to move for a directed verdict or to arrest judgment, asserting insufficient evidence based on a theory of inherent improbability regarding Rita's testimony; and second, by failing to object to Mother's statements.To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1)"that counsel's performance was deficient" and (2)"that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S 668, 687(1984)."Both elements must be present" to demonstrate ineffective assistance, and "if either is lacking, the claim fails and the court need not address the other."State v. Powell, 2020 UT App 63, ¶ 19, 463 P.3d 705(cleaned up).

¶13 Here, Corona's inherent improbability claim fails because he cannot demonstrate that Counsel rendered deficient performance, and his improper testimony claim fails because he cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced by Mother's statements.

I.Inherent Improbability

¶14 Corona first argues that Counsel was ineffective for "failing to move for a directed verdict or to arrest judgment based on Rita's inherently improbable statements."To prove deficient performance, Corona must demonstrate Counsel's "representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness."Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688.The deficient performance inquiry "should focus on whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances."State v. Gallegos, 2020 UT 19, ¶ 34, 463 P.3d 641(cleaned up).

¶15 To succeed on the deficient performance prong, Corona would have to show that it was objectively unreasonable not to make the motion.SeeState v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 35, 462 P.3d 350.Because we"indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," this is a difficult standard to meet.Gallegos, 2020 UT 19, ¶ 34(cleaned up).And it is only made more difficult in the context of inherent improbability.

¶16 Any reasonable attorney who has been tracking the development of Utah's case law surrounding the doctrine of inherent improbability would know that it is a very high standard to meet.The foundational case addressing the standard for inherent improbability in Utah law is State v. Robbins, 2009 UT 23, 210 P.3d 288."The witness in Robbins was a minor whose testimony contained many inconsistencies as well as patently false statements to cover up those inconsistencies-including a made up story about a hearing problem-and no other evidence pointed to the defendant's guilt."State v. Hughes, 2024 UT App 168, ¶ 37, 560 P.3d 188(cleaned up), cert. denied, 564 P.3d 957(Utah2025).

¶17 Not only did Robbins involve an extreme set of circumstances, but it is also the "only Utah case in which a witness's testimony has been deemed inherently improbable based on material inconsistencies."Id.As we have pointed out, "a case which actually falls within the Robbins-Prater rubric is exceedingly rare."^[3]State v. Rivera, 2019 UT App 188, ¶ 23 n.6, 455 P.3d 112.In 2019, we noted that "we have not found a single Utah decision examined under that rubric that has reversed a verdict since Robbins."Id.That is still true six years later.

¶18 Reasonable counsel could have-indeed probably would have-concluded that there was no use in making a motion based on inherent improbability in the present matter because such a motion would almost certainly fail.While this court may be confronted with another factual case like Robbins someday, this case doesn't come close.A reasonable attorney would be wary of making a motion based on inherent improbability in all but the most extreme case.^[4]¶19"There are three hallmarks of inherently improbable testimony that courts have often considered in their analysis: material inconsistencies, patent falsehoods, and lack of corroborating evidence."State v. Barnes, 2023 UT App 148, ¶ 24, 542 P.3d 108(cleaned up), cert. denied, 544 P.3d 459(Utah2024).Corona argues that Rita's testimony demonstrated all three of these hallmarks.We find his arguments on each point unpersuasive.

¶20...