Reyak
Reyak v. Hickman
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Randy Allen Revak appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for kidnapping with intent to commit rape, forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and rape with a foreign object. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
Revak contends that his sentence was enhanced in violation of state law. Because Revak has not shown that his sentence was fundamentally unfair, this claim is not cognizable on federal review. See Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir.1994). To the extent that Revak raises Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), his claim is foreclosed by Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir.2005).
Revak contends that his right to due process and his right to notice of charges were violated by the state’s failure to allege in the criminal complaint that he was eligible for certain sentencing enhancements. Because Revak was fully informed of all the charges against him, we conclude that his rights were not violated. See Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir.1995).