Opinion ID: 165241
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: any lascivious, lustful or licentious conduct,

Text: 33 b. the giving or receiving of the body for indiscriminate sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, anal intercourse, or lascivious, lustful or licentious conduct with any person not his or her spouse, or 34 c. any act in furtherance of such conduct or any appointment or engagement for prostitution. 35 Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1030(6) (1991). The words lewd and lascivious, when used in a statute to define an offense, usually have the same meaning, to wit, an unlawful indulgence in lust; eager for sexual indulgence. Rich v. State, 266 P.2d 476, 479 (Okla.Crim.App.1954) (quotation omitted). Finally, to support an attempt conviction, the state must prove (1) intent to commit a specific crime; (2) performance of an overt act toward the commission of that crime; and (3) failure to consummate that crime. James v. State, 711 P.2d 111, 113 (Okla.Crim.App.1985). 36 After an independent review of the record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it is clear that a rational factfinder could have found Webber guilty of sexual battery, lewd molestation, and attempted lewd molestation based on the evidence presented. In addition, the OCCA's rejection of Webber's claim was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. Each of the seven victims of Webber's alleged sexual molestation testified at length regarding their age at the time of the incident(s) and provided detailed descriptions of Webber's conduct making up the elements of the charges. 37 Webber, however, argues that the evidence failed to show the requisite unlawful sexual indulgence, and that the testimony described conduct that amounted only to horseplay. Contrary to Webber's suggestion, the testimony was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Webber acted in a lewd and lascivious manner. The witnesses testified that Webber's behavior went beyond giving a snuggie or horseplay and described how uncomfortable Webber's behavior made them feel. Moreover, the testimony demonstrated a pattern of behavior from which a rational factfinder could infer an eagerness for sexual indulgence. Webber is not entitled to habeas relief on his sufficiency of the evidence claim because the OCCA's rejection of Webber's claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Jackson, nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts.