Did the Ninth Circuit's finding of untimeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) so clearly misapply the law as to call for summary reversal?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Sharrieff Brown filed a claim for the ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to locate critical impeachment materials on the forensic pathologist witness that were in trial counsel’s possession. Trial counsel failed to discover them in reliance on the prosecutor’s statement, in response to his request for disclosure of the impeachment materials, that no such materials exist. Habeas counsel learned of the existence of the materials in the prosecutor’s office. Later, when habeas counsel learned that those same materials had been in trial counsel’s possession at the time of trial, she filed a petition within one year. Did the Ninth Circuit’s finding of untimeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) so clearly misapply the law as to call for summary reversal? i PARTIES AND LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS The parties to this proceeding are Petitioner Sharrieff Brown and Respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The California Attorney General represents Respondent. Brown was convicted by jury in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 10, 2010 in People v. Sharrieff Brown, case no. MA043976, Judge Jared Moses, presiding. Petitioner’s