Background
Theresa Torricellas appealed the district court’s denial of her habeas petition. The district court had denied the petition and issued a certificate of appealability regarding whether a claim based on an alleged error in the prima facie determination of resentencing under California Penal Code Section one thousand one hundred seventy-two point six was cognizable on federal habeas review.
The court’s reasoning
The court first determined that the petition was timely because the relevant judgment became final ninety days after the California Supreme Court denied review of the resentencing proceedings, and the petition was filed two months before the one-year deadline expired. The court then applied the harmless error standard, noting that California law still permits murder liability for actual killers, direct aiders and abettors who acted with intent to kill, and major participants who acted with reckless indifference. Torricellas admitted in her plea colloquy that she knew her codefendant intended to kill, selected the location, held the shotgun, acted as a lookout, and asked if she should kill the victim herself. Based on these admissions, the state court correctly found she was ineligible for relief. The court concluded it need not reach the question of whether the claim regarding the denial of an evidentiary hearing was cognizable.
What it means going forward
The decision confirms that federal habeas relief is unavailable for defendants who remain statutorily ineligible for resentencing under California Penal Code Section one thousand one hundred seventy-two point six due to their direct involvement in the killing.