Case Name: Aaron Edward PETTIJOHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BARTOS, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-27
Citations: 248 F. App'x 845
Docket Number: No. 07-15267
Parties: Aaron Edward PETTIJOHN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. BARTOS, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 248
Pages: 845–846

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.