People v. Frye CA3

Filed 6/27/25 P. v. Frye CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100851

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 26719)

v.

JOE EDWARD FRYE,

Defendant and Appellant.

At a resentencing proceeding under Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court sentenced defendant Joe Edward Frye to 16 years to life imprisonment.1 Defendant appeals, arguing the court failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances and the future risk to public safety when declining to strike his weapon enhancement. He also

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

challenges the court’s determination that his case was “not unusual.” Finding no merit to these contentions, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 1980, defendant and two companions were traveling on a freight train. The victim, who spoke little or no English, joined them at a stop. Defendant told his companions that the victim would have to “ ‘give up some ass’ ” to travel with them or be killed. Defendant consumed wine. After the victim refused to submit to defendant’s sexual advances, defendant used a machete to force the victim to the boxcar’s door. Defendant then pushed the victim off the train; the victim died from his injuries shortly after he was discovered. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder (§ 187) and found true an allegation that defendant used a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)). Defendant admitted he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in prison for the murder conviction and one year each for the two enhancements. In 2022, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation informed the trial court that defendant was serving a sentence for a prior prison term enhancement declared legally invalid by what is now section 1172.75 (former section 1171.1). The trial court struck the sentence for the prior prison term enhancement and resentenced defendant to the same term for the murder conviction and deadly weapon enhancement, resulting in a new aggregate sentence of 16 years to life. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred by concluding it had no authority to reconsider aspects of defendant’s sentence other than the sentence for the prior prison term. (People v. Frye (Nov. 28, 2023, C096975) [nonpub. opn.].) We held that defendant forfeited this claim by failing to argue this point below but elected to excuse the forfeiture. (Ibid.) We remanded the matter to the trial court for defendant to argue that his sentence should be further modified. (Ibid.)