9th Circuit upholds denial of resentencing for Theresa Torricellas, ruling any procedural error was harmless…
Theresa Torricellas v. J. Core
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds denial of resentencing for Theresa Torricellas, ruling any procedural error was harmless because she admitted facts showing she directly aided a murder.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Theresa Torricellas's habeas petition, which challenged the denial of an evidentiary hearing in her California resentencing proceedings. The court found that even if there was a procedural error in the resentencing process, it was harmless because Torricellas admitted facts during her original plea that showed she directly aided and abetted the killing. Because she remains ineligible for resentencing relief under California law based on those admissions, the court did not need to decide whether her procedural claim was even the kind of claim federal courts can review.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Theresa Torricellas, who remains ineligible for resentencing. More broadly, it is relevant to people in California who are seeking resentencing under Penal Code Section 1172.6 and who may wish to challenge their resentencing proceedings in federal court.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 14, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 14, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Theresa Torricellas was convicted of murder in California and later sought resentencing under California Penal Code Section 1172.6, a law that allows people convicted under certain now-invalid murder theories to petition for a reduced sentence. A key step in that process is a prima facie hearing, where a court decides whether the person is even eligible before holding a full evidentiary hearing. Torricellas argued that she was wrongly denied an evidentiary hearing, and she brought a federal habeas petition claiming this denial violated her constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit first confirmed that her federal petition was filed on time. Under the federal habeas statute known as AEDPA, petitioners generally have one year from when their judgment becomes final. The court found that the relevant judgment became final in December 2021, after the California Supreme Court declined to review her resentencing case, and she filed her federal petition in October 2022, within the one-year window. On the core question, the court assumed without deciding that her procedural claim could be raised in a federal habeas petition. It then applied the harmless error standard from Brecht v. Abrahamson, which asks whether any error had a substantial and injurious effect on the outcome. The court concluded the error was harmless because California law still permits murder liability for someone who directly aided and abetted a killing with intent to kill. Torricellas had admitted during her original plea that she knew her codefendant intended to kill the victim, that she selected the remote location, that she held the shotgun before handing it to her codefendant, that she acted as a lookout, and that she had even asked whether she should commit the killing herself. Based on these admissions, the California Court of Appeal had already found her ineligible for resentencing relief, and the Ninth Circuit deferred to that conclusion under AEDPA's standard of review. Because Torricellas was found ineligible for resentencing regardless of the procedural issue, the court did not resolve the broader legal question certified for appeal, which was whether a claim about a flawed prima facie resentencing determination is even a cognizable federal habeas claim. The court issued no dissent. The ruling affirms the district court and leaves Torricellas's conviction and sentence in place.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THERESA ANNETTE TORRICELLAS, No. 23-55640 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01670-MMA-KSC v. J. CORE, Warden; ROB BONTA, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, State of California, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 22, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, OWENS, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Theresa Torricellas appeals from the district court’s denial of her habeas petition. When denying Torricellas’s petition, the district court also issued a certificate of appealability regarding “whether a claim based upon an alleged error in the prima facie determination of resentencing under [California Penal Code] § 1172.6(c) and resulting denial of an evidentiary hearing is a cognizable * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. federal habeas claim.” As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. 1. Torricellas’s petition is timely. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), the one-year statute of limitations runs from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). “[A] resentencing petition does not challenge the underlying conviction or sentence; rather, it seeks to obtain the benefits of [the new statutory provision] and results in the entry of a new appealable order or judgment.” Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, the adjudication of a resentencing petition “constitutes a new judgment.” Id. The relevant judgment became final on December 14, 2021, ninety days after the California Supreme Court denied review of Torricellas’s resentencing proceedings on September 15, 2021. Because Torricellas filed the present federal habeas petition on October 14, 2022, two months before AEDPA’s one-year deadline expired on December 14, 2022, it is timely. 2. Even if Torricellas’s claim was cognizable, any error was harmless, as it would not have had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the outcome. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)). California still permits murder liability 2 for the actual killer, a direct aider and abettor who acted with the intent to kill, and a major participant in an underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. See, e.g., People v. Strong, 514 P.3d 265, 274 (Cal. 2022) (noting that relief under the legislative change “is unavailable if the defendant was either the actual killer, acted with the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life . . . ”) (citations omitted). Torricellas admitted in her plea colloquy that she knew that her codefendant intended to kill the victim. She accompanied the victim and codefendant to a remote location that she had selected, held the shotgun in the vehicle before handing it to the codefendant, and acted as a lookout. Indeed, she had asked her co-defendant whether she should kill the victim herself. Based on these admissions, the California Court of Appeal concluded that she remained liable for murder and is statutorily ineligible for relief under California Penal Code § 1172.6(c), finding that she directly aided and abetted the killing. We owe AEDPA deference to the state court’s factual and legal conclusions, which are not unreasonable. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100–01 (2011). Torricellas ultimately remains ineligible for resentencing relief. Thus, we need not reach the question of whether Torricellas’s claim that she was unconstitutionally denied an evidentiary hearing under California Penal Code § 1172.6(c) is cognizable on federal habeas review. 3 AFFIRMED. 4
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.