Case ID: f-appx_248/html/0845-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aaron Edward PETTIJOHN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. BARTOS, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 07-15267.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2007.
    Aaron Edward Pettijohn, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.
    Katia Mehu, Esq., AGAZ-Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aaron Edward Pettijohn, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the dismissal as untimely of Ms 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition claiming that his sentence was unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). He contends that his habeas petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) because he filed a state court post-conviction petition within one year of Blakely. As stated by the district court, this contention lacks merit because the Supreme Court has not held that Blakely is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 662, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001) (rnterpreting § 2244(b)(2)(A)); Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir.2005), cert. dismissed (U.S. June 29, 2006) (No. 05-9237).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.