Pickett
Pickett v. Hall
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Oregon state prisoner Appleton Pickett, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
The district court dismissed the petition, in part, on the grounds that it was untimely. Pickett contends that his petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(C) because he filed it within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This argument lacks merit because Pickett has not shown that he filed his petition within a year of the date on which the right he asserts was “newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(C); see also Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that the new rule announced in Blakely does not apply retroactively to a conviction that was final before that decision was announced).
In light of this disposition, we decline to reach Pickett’s contention that he has a constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.