San Francisco Criminal Lawyer BlogStatute making possession of a”sharp instrument” in prison is not unconstitutionally vague
People v. Valle (Cal. Ct. App., July 14, 2025, No. 2D CRIM. B338909) 2025 WL 1922434, at *1
Summary: A California prisoner who had a 14-inch by 1-inch hard non-flexible piece of plastic, sharpened to a point, poses a danger to other prisoners and prison officials. Possession of this lethal weapon in prison is a crime.
Valle is serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, appealed his conviction, by jury, of possessing a sharp instrument in prison. (Pen. Code section 4502.) The trial court sentenced him, as a third-strike offender, to a term in prison of 25 years to life. Valle argues that section 4502 is unconstitutionally vague because it does not sufficiently define the term, “sharp instrument.”
Possession of a weapon in prison
Valle, an inmate at the California Men’s Colon was previously convicted of kidnapping (§ 209, subds. (a), (b)(1)), conspiracy (§ 182, subd. (a)), first degree attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), first degree robbery (§ 211), carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)) and dissuading a witness by force or fear. (§ 136, subd. (c).) In December 2022, a correctional officer searched his cell, along with every other cell on the tier where appellant was housed and found fragments of a plastic food tray under Valle’s mattress. One of the fragments measured about 14 inches long and 1 inch wide and had been sharpened to a point. The officer also found several metal fragments from a stainless steel shower valve cover, concealed inside an N95 mask and inside a greeting card in Valle’s mail. The officer also found a heavy, folded metal sheet, eight inches by five inches.
The officer described the sharpened plastic fragment as a weapon that resembled a spear or a knife. The plastic was “[not] flexible,” and had been “fashioned into a device that can be used for stabbing.” Because metal can also be fashioned into a weapon, inmates are forbidden to keep metal fragments in their cells. The officer concluded that the items recovered from appellant’s cell could be used as weapons. He believed it was likely that Valle kept them to protect himself from other prisoners.
Penal Code Section 4502 and possession of a weapon in prison
Section 4502 makes it a felony for any person “while at or confined in any penal institution,” to possess, carry or have “under his or her custody or control, any instrument or weapon ….” (Id., subd. (a).) The statute lists prohibited weapons including firearms, tear gas, explosive substances, metal knuckles, and, as relevant here, “any dirk, dagger or sharp instrument ….” (Ibid.) It does not include a definition of the term “sharp instrument.” Valle contends this omission renders the statute unconstitutionally vague because “sharp” and “instrument” both have numerous meanings in common usage so it is not possible to determine which items are prohibited by the statute. The purpose of the statute is protection of inmates and prison staff against assaults by armed prisoners.
Criminal statutes and vagueness
Due process requires that a criminal statute must “ ‘ “ ‘be definite enough to provide (1) a standard of conduct for those whose activities are proscribed and (2) a standard for police enforcement and for ascertainment of guilt.’ ” The statute must inform a person of ordinary intelligence what conduct is permitted and what conduct is prohibited.
California courts have consistently rejected the claim that section 4502 is unconstitutionally vague on its face.
Section 4502 prohibits prison inmates “from possessing any instrument or weapon of the kind specified in the statute,” demonstrating a legislative intent “to protect inmates and correctional staff ‘from the peril of assaults with dangerous weapons perpetrated by armed prisoners.’ [Citation.] It applies to instruments that can be used to inflict injury and that are not necessary for an inmate to have in the inmate’s possession. [Citation.]”
The Court of Appeal held that a 14 inch by 1-inch sharpened piece of hard non-flexible plastic is a sharp instrument proscribed by section 4502. The statute is not facially invalid and not unconstitutional as applied in this case. Here, the 14-inch-long piece of hard, inflexible plastic that had been sharpened to a point and resembled a knife or a short spear. Valle also had folded sheet metal and fragments of sharpened metal concealed in his cell. A reasonable person would understand that he or she is not permitted to possess such items. The fact that appellant concealed these objects in his cell demonstrates his understanding that they were prohibited. (Steely, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d at p. 594, 72 Cal.Rptr. 368.) The statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to appellant’s conduct.
The judgment was affirmed.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.