Saavedra

People v. Saavedra

Good Law
156 Cal. App. 4th 561·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1781·67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 403
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 2007D049187California3,849 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

Idalberto Saavedra appeals from a judgment convicting him of possessing a weapon while confined in a penal institution. (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a).) He contends the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte instruct on duress and self-defense. Alternatively, he contends defense counsel provided ineffective representation by failing to request instructions on these two defenses.

We reject Saavedra’s contention that the evidence supported a duress instruction. We agree with his assertion that self-defense may be a valid defense to a charge of inmate weapon possession, but find the omission of the instruction in this case to be harmless. Based on these holdings, Saavedra’s ineffective representation claim also fails. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2005, Saavedra, an inmate at Centinela State Prison, was attacked by two other inmates in the prison yard. Responding to the altercation, the prison officials ordered all inmates in the yard to assume a sitting position on the ground. Officer Enrique Rosiles observed that the two inmates were punching Saavedra in the upper torso with closed fists. Saavedra was first standing and then…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.