109 Cal.App.5th 585
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Terrance Russell Terwilligar was sentenced in 2007 to 53 years to life following convictions on two assault counts (not serious or violent felonies for Three Strikes purposes), including Three Strikes enhancements and prior prison term enhancements.
- In 2023, Terwilligar sought resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.75 (Senate Bill 483), which retroactively invalidated certain prior prison term enhancements, and also requested that the court apply the more lenient Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act/Prop 36).
- The trial court struck Terwilligar's prior prison term enhancements but otherwise reimposed the original indeterminate terms (25 years to life for each assault), declining to resentence under the Reform Act.
- Terwilligar argued he should also receive the benefit of the Reform Act's penalty structure (second-strike determinate term), citing that his current offenses were not “serious or violent” felonies.
- The District Attorney at one point agreed but later disavowed that position, opposing application of the Reform Act in a § 1172.75 resentencing.
- The trial court denied his motion and declined also to consider a late petition under § 1170.126 (the Reform Act's recall mechanism), which Terwilligar claimed he missed because prison counselors misinformed him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1172.75 allow resentencing under the Reform Act's revised (second-strike) penalty for non-serious/non-violent felonies? | Yes: The statute compels resentencing under current law, including the Reform Act, mandating a second-strike sentence. | Yes: Terwilligar’s offense is not serious/violent, so under current law (post-Reform Act) he would get a determinate second-strike term. | No: § 1172.75 does not permit resentencing to a second-strike term when the Reform Act’s procedures/protections are bypassed—doing so would unconstitutionally amend a voter initiative. |
| Does vacatur of an original sentence under § 1172.75 require full resentencing under all current laws? | Yes: Once vacated, the court must resentence entirely as if starting anew, under all current laws. | Yes: Resentencing means applying all new, possibly more lenient, laws. | No: Resentencing under § 1172.75 can be limited, especially if expanding relief would violate the Reform Act’s voter protections and procedural requirements. |
| Should Terwilligar be permitted to file a late petition under § 1170.126 (the Reform Act) for resentencing? | No position at trial; on appeal the State did not oppose remand for this issue. | Yes: Good cause exists—he was told by prison staff he was ineligible. | Yes: Remand is required for trial court to determine whether Terwilligar has good cause to file a late petition. |
| Can a court consider striking prior strikes (Romero motion) at resentencing? | No abuse of discretion; court would have denied even if it reached merits. | The court failed to meaningfully consider mitigating circumstances. | Error was harmless; remand for Romero motion not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) (clarifies the operation and intent of the Three Strikes Reform Act and limitations on resentencing)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (sets the retroactivity presumption for ameliorative criminal statutes unless limited by legislative intent)
- People v. Dix, 53 Cal.3d 442 (Cal. 1991) (explains when a vacated sentence allows for full resentencing authority)