Opinion ID: 167864
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Charging Document Challenge

Text: M r. Amos also objects to the district court’s finding that his challenge to the charging document was based on state law, and therefore provided no ground for federal habeas relief. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), federal courts may entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in state custody “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or law s or treaties of the United States.” Although a charging document may violate the Sixth Amendment if it fails to provide a defendant with adequate notice of the nature and cause of the accusation filed, the adequacy of a state criminal complaint presents a question of state law rather than federal law. Johnson v. -7- Gibson, 169 F.3d 1239, 1252 (10th Cir. 1999). The district court correctly found that M r. Amos presented a question of state law, not a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, by claiming that the charging document was defective. To the extent that he has raised a Sixth Amendment challenge, M r. Amos has provided no information to suggest that the charging document failed to provide him with adequate notice of the accusations against him. Accordingly, he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.