362 P.3d 650
Okla. Crim. App.2015Background
- Jimmy Robert Weeks was charged under 21 O.S.Supp.2010 § 1125(A) for loitering within 500 feet of a child care center; he waived a jury trial and entered a negotiated no contest plea to one count.
- The district court accepted the plea, sentenced Weeks to six months (with credit for time served), fined him, and assessed costs.
- Weeks filed an application to withdraw his plea arguing the statute is unconstitutional (vague/overbroad) and that evidence was insufficient. The district court denied the motion.
- Weeks sought certiorari review in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which limited review to whether the plea was voluntary and whether a facial constitutional challenge to the statute was permissible after the plea.
- The Court reviewed whether § 1125(A) is void-for-vagueness on its face and whether Weeks preserved an insufficiency-of-evidence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 21 O.S.Supp.2010 § 1125(A) is facially void for vagueness/overbroad | Weeks: "loitering" is ambiguous and statute fails to give fair notice; thus unconstitutional | State: §1125, read with its exemptions, gives clear notice of prohibited conduct; facial challenge is reviewable despite plea | Court: Facial vagueness challenge rejected; statute affords fair notice because exemptions define permitted conduct; overbreadth not argued and waived |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support conviction | Weeks: insufficient evidence to sustain conviction | State: claim waived by plea and not raised in application to withdraw plea | Court: Claim waived for failing to raise it in the motion to withdraw plea; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea precludes collateral attacks on pre-plea constitutional claims)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (plea forecloses independent claims that arose before the plea)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (exception: guilty plea does not bar facial challenges to a court's power to prosecute)
- Hayes v. Mun. Court of Oklahoma City, 487 P.2d 974 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971) (ordinance criminalizing loitering struck as unconstitutionally vague)
- Switzer v. City of Tulsa, 598 P.2d 247 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979) (loitering/frequenting ordinance unconstitutionally vague)
- Rainbolt v. State, 260 P.2d 426 (Okla. Crim. App. 1953) (distinguishes permissible vs. impermissible uses of loitering language)