There was sufficient evidence to show that the victim of the offense was a custodial officer despite the lack of evidence that the officer had received the proper training and supervision. It was sufficient that he was employed by the county jail as a custodial officer and was carrying out his duties as such when the battery occurred. Nor was appellant denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not challenge the testimony regarding the victim’s status as a custodial officer or make an 1118.1 motion for acquittal based on the issue. Such an objection or motion would have been futile.