Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of the Continuing Threat Aggravator

Text: Mr. Wilson first challenges the constitutionality of the continuing threat aggravator. Under Oklahoma law, this aggravator requires [t]he existence of a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 701.12(7). He claims that this is vague and overbroad because it does not perform the appropriate narrowing function. This claim is foreclosed by our Circuit's precedent. We have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of this aggravator. See, e.g., Sallahdin v. Gibson, 275 F.3d 1211, 1232 (10th Cir. 2002); Medlock, 200 F.3d at 1319-20; Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1997). Mr. Wilson offers no reasons for us to deviate from our prior precedent, and we decline to do so today.