ENGLES v. STATE
2015 OK CR 17
Okla. Crim. App.2015Background
- Appellant Billy Wayne Engles, a previously convicted registerable sex offender (victim under 13), was convicted by a jury in Bryan County for loitering within a statutory "zone of safety" around a school in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2010 § 1125.
- Sentence: 235 days’ jail time served and a $2,500 fine. Judgment and sentence were entered by the district court.
- Engles raised multiple appellate claims: vagueness of § 1125, insufficiency of the evidence, ex post facto prohibition, judicial conflict of interest, erroneous denial of a challenge for cause to a juror, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and cumulative error.
- Key statutory scheme: § 1125 prohibits presence in the zone of safety by registerable sex offenders (victims under 13) unless narrowly exempted (e.g., custodial parent/guardian of an enrolled student performing limited tasks) and requires advance notice to school administrators and regular updates.
- The Court reviewed preserved claims and many waived claims for plain-error only where no contemporaneous objection was made.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of § 1125 | Statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Statute gives notice via specific prohibitions and narrow exemptions | Statute is not unconstitutionally vague; Proposition One denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove loitering offense | Engles was not a custodial parent/guardian, lacked exemption and notice, so evidence supports conviction | Evidence sufficient; Proposition Two denied |
| Ex post facto violation | 2010 § 1125 application retroactively penalizes prior conduct | Law did not criminalize innocent past conduct or increase punishment; no ex post facto problem | No ex post facto violation; Proposition Three denied |
| Judicial conflict / recusal | Judge who acted as magistrate had conflict and should be disqualified | No prior counsel relationship; prior prosecution alone does not require disqualification | No plain error; recusal claim denied |
| Denial of challenge for cause | Trial court should have excused a prospective juror for cause | Defense removed that juror with a peremptory; no preserved record of prejudice | No reversible error; claim waived/no plain error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to seek recusal and to request extra peremptories/specify unacceptable jurors | Trial strategy reasonable; no prejudice because jurors were impartial | Strickland not satisfied; Proposition Six denied |
| Cumulative error | Combined errors deprived Engles of a fair trial | No significant errors to accumulate | No cumulative error; Proposition Seven denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (vagueness standard for criminal statutes)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance deficient performance/prejudice test)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (peremptory-strike strategy and prejudice requirement)
- Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (ex post facto framework)
- Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (plain-error review in Oklahoma criminal appeals)