People v. Zepeda CA5

Filed 5/30/14 P. v. Zepeda CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F065826 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MF008957A) v.

JAIME LEDESMA ZEPEDA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Cory J. Woodward and Michael E. Dellostritto, Judges.* Aaron Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Stephen G. Herndon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Judge Dellostritto heard and ruled on the motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; Judge Woodward presided over the trial.

A jury convicted appellant, Jaime Ledesma Zepeda, an inmate at the California Correctional Institution located in Tehachapi (CCI Tehachapi), of possessing a sharp instrument. He argues the judgment must be reversed because the prosecutor improperly commented on his exercise of his right to remain silent. We need not decide if the prosecutor’s comment was improper because, even if we were to assume it was improper, Zepeda did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the perceived error. Finally, Zepeda asks us to review the documents produced in response to his motion for disclosure of the correctional officer’s personnel file to determine if the trial court erred when it denied his motion for discovery. We have reviewed the documents and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The sole count of the information charged Zepeda with violation of Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a),1 possession of a sharp instrument while incarcerated in prison. The information also alleged Zepeda had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The prosecution’s primary witness was Correctional Officer Eric Sandt. Sandt works at CCI Tehachapi. On February 15, 2009, Sandt searched Zepeda’s cell and discovered a two-inch long, inmate-manufactured weapon made of metal, as well as a needle. A magnet was used to attach the items to the bottom of the upper bunk. Sandt previously had encountered Zepeda in 2005. When Zepeda was transferred to CCI Tehachapi, he brought with him more personal belongings than were permitted at the facility. Prison regulations require excess personal belongings either be shipped to an address provided by the inmate at his expense or disposed of by the facility. Sandt attempted to obtain from Zepeda an address where the excess property could be shipped. Zepeda refused to provide an address. Later, Zepeda filed a small claims action for the 1All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.