Can a jury conclude appellant was unlawfully confined in a state prison?

During closing argument, the defense never asserted appellant was not lawfully confined in a state prison. Instead, the defense argued a willful touching did not occur. Stemming from the trial evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude appellant was committed to prison by a lawful order. Such a conclusion is a deduction of fact logically and reasonably drawn from other facts established in this trial. (See Evid. Code, 600, subd. (b).) This inference was not based on speculation. (See People v. Davis, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 360.)

Based on this record, the prosecution introduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine appellant violated section 4501.5 beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence against appellant was reasonable, credible and of solid value. Thus, substantial evidence supports appellant's conviction. (See People v. D'Arcy, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 293.) Accordingly, appellant's various arguments regarding the insufficiency of the evidence are without merit, and these claims fail.

Page 12