P. v. Tran CA3

Filed 7/18/13 P. v. Tran CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento)

THE PEOPLE, C072200

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F04439)

v.

EMILY LETUYEN TRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Emily Letuyen Tran of the attempted murder of Marissa Vilaysouk (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187 subd. (a); count one)1 and two counts of assault upon Vilaysouk with a deadly weapon, to wit, a car (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts two [in the dirt lot] and six [on Martin Luther King (MLK) Boulevard]). The jury acquitted defendant on additional counts charging assault with a deadly weapon (counts three, four, and five) and criminal threats (count seven).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Sentenced to state prison, defendant appeals. She contends insufficient evidence supports counts one and two. We conclude more than sufficient evidence supports counts one and two. Defendant also contends the trial court erroneously imposed a concurrent term for count two since it was indivisible conduct from that in count one. The People concede. We agree and will modify the judgment accordingly. FACTS “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must draw all inferences in support of the verdict that can reasonably be deduced and must uphold the judgment if, after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 86.) Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and with all reasonably deducible inferences drawn in support of the verdict, the following evidence was adduced at trial. On June 19, 2011, Marissa Vilaysouk went to Wal-Mart with David Saetuern who drove a four-door Acura Legend. Vilaysouk had previously dated Saetuern who, at the same time, had dated defendant. Vilaysouk had met defendant and described their meetings as “[m]ore than tense.” As Saetuern and Vilaysouk left Wal-Mart, Saetuern seemed nervous, having seen defendant. Saetuern drove to the back of Wal-Mart where they saw defendant who was driving a sport utility vehicle (SUV). Defendant stopped next to them, driver-side to driver-side, but said nothing to them. Saetuern drove out of the parking lot and eventually onto Stockton Boulevard. Defendant followed them. When Saetuern stopped at a stoplight, defendant hit the back of their car. Saetuern drove onto Highway 99 and defendant followed. Vilaysouk was frightened. Saetuern tried speeding away from defendant but defendant gave chase and again hit Saetuern’s car.