Bazley

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner, Mike Bazley, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and affirm.

Bazley contends that his habeas petition is a proper vehicle to challenge the validity of a 1965 conviction that was used to increase his current sentence. He relies on an implied exception to Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. *703 394 , 121 S.Ct. 1567 , 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001), arguing that habeas relief should be available because he cannot be faulted for “failing to obtain timely review of a constitutional claim.” Id. at 405 . We disagree.

Bazle/s failure to follow through after the state trial court’s denial of his 1972 habeas petition refutes his claim that a federal petition in 2000 was the first available vehicle for review of his constitutional challenges to his 1965 guilty plea. Cf. id.; Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 383 , 121 S.Ct. 1578 , 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001) (discussing in a plurality opinion the possible exceptions to the general rule that prior convictions cannot be attacked in a federal habeas…