1 Filed 10/14/14 P. v. Brown CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
AUSHUA M C DUFF-BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. C072753 (Super. Ct. No. SF118629A)

On October 3, 2011, Shikara Daan was at the Madison Market with her son and her niece Antionette Brooks. They went to the market so the father of Brooks’s children, Timothy Fonville, could drop o ff the children with Brooks. While Brooks was on the phone arranging the meeting, Daan overheard a female in the background “being disrespectful.” Daan and Brooks showed up before Fonville did. Fonville arrived in a car driven by defendant Aushua McDuff-Bro wn. Fonville was in the front passenger seat, and a woman and three children were in the rear. Br ooks walked outside the store to meet her children. Looking through the store wi ndow, Daan saw defendant and the woman2 passenger come out of the car. She became upset when the woman passenger started talking loudly and “saying stuff.” Daan we nt outside and heard Brooks exchange words with the woman, who was now back in the backseat of the car. Brooks threw a “sippy cup” at the woman in the backseat. 1 Daan thought the woman in the backseat ha d thrown the cup; she started to talk “trash” to the woman in the backseat and challenged her to come out and fight. She went around to the woman’s side of the car and hit her through the window. The woman came out of the car and fought with Daan until they were separa ted by Fonville and another person. Fonville and the woman went back into the car while Daan went inside the store to get her things. When Daan came outside, th e car was stopped a little farther away in the parking lot, facing the lot’s far driveway. Defendant, who was in the driver’s seat, told Daan, “Bitch, wh oop dee whoo. I’m gonna come over,” and “Bitch, you think you hard , Bitch. You ain’t this shit. That’s my friend.” Daan was about 60 to 65 feet aw ay from the car. She told defendant that defendant talked like that only because she was inside the ca r. Defendant threatened to run her over, and Daan responde d by threatening to break her window with a scooter that she had. Defendant drove the car to ward Daan. According to Daan, the car was traveling more than five or ten miles an hour. The car came straight toward Daan until she jumped away; the passenger side of the car bumped the side of Daan’s thigh. Deleshia Mason took her three-year-old son, Ruben Ramirez, to the Madison Market that same day. She he lped Ruben place his silver scoot er against the store’s wall. A similar scooter was also outside the store.

1 Brooks testified to throwing the cup at the woman in the backseat.3 Mason was preoccupied with Ruben’s scoot er. Hearing the sound of tires moving on gravel, she looked up and saw a car head ing straight toward where she and her son were standing. She heard the car’s engine “i dling up,” as in “when you first press on the gas.” The car, which did not slow down, hi t Ruben and pinned him against the wall of the market. Mason ran over to the car and told the driv er, defendant, that she had hit her son. It sounded like defendant was still pressing on the accelerator, so Mason tried to reach into the car and move the gear shift to revers e. Defendant eventually reversed the car and drove off. As did Mason and Daan, Brooks a nd another witness iden tified defendant as the driver. Ruben died of blunt force trauma to his tr unk. Tire marks near the parking blocks in front of the market indicated accelerati on away from the market. There were no skid marks consistent with the tires locking up. Two days later, Gisela Cervantes was on a Greyhound bus traveling from Oakland to Los Angeles. Defendant sat next to her. Defendant, who was going to El Paso, Texas, admitted she was the driver in a news story about the Stockton hit- and-run incident in which a little boy was killed. Defendant said sh e was not going to turn herself in because she had a son of her own. When Cervantes asked how she was able to sleep, defendant said she did not think about it. Defendant was charged with first degree murder (Pen. Code , § 187, subd. (a)), 2 attempted premeditated murder (§§ 664/187, su bd. (a)), and hit-and-r un resulting in death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)( 2)), with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The jury convic ted her of the lesser included offenses of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder done with premeditation

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.4 and deliberation (§§ 664/ 187, subd. (a)), convicted her of hit-and-run resulting in death, and found true the deadly weapon enhancement. The trial court sentenced her to 22 years to life in prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 440 days of presentence credit (440 actual and 0 conduct). Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communica tion from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable e rror that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

BUTZ , J.

MAURO , J.