Opinion ID: 3032545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The offenses committed were part of an ongoing

Text: pattern of sexual abuse of the same victim and involved multiple incidents over a prolonged period of time. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Schardt’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. Mr. Schardt did not petition the Washington Supreme Court for direct review. Mr. Schardt’s personal restraint petition was dismissed by the Washington Court of Appeals. The Washington Supreme Court denied Mr. Schardt’s motion for discretionary review of the personal restraint petition. In his state prisoner petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Mr. Schardt raised three arguments: 7972 SCHARDT v. PAYNE (1) his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as construed by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); (2) more than a preponderance of the evidence was required to enhance his sentence, and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to discover and submit reports made by Mr. Schardt’s treating physicians showing that he had complained of erectile dysfunction at the time of the alleged rapes. The district court denied the petition. The district court had jurisdiction over this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254. We have jurisdiction to review Mr. Schardt’s timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.