In re Douglas, 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 582, 589 (4th Dist. Oct. 27, 2011) (the California prejudice requirement of laches reflects recognition that a substantial delay will prejudice the respondent's ability to answer the petition, respects the importance of finality of judgments to the state, and recognizes the difficulty of retrial in the event that a judgment is set aside on habeas corpus many years after the conviction.); quoting In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 787; distinguishing Gratzer v. Mahoney (9th Cir. 2005) 397 F.3d 686, 690 (the Ninth Circuit found it irrelevant under federal law to the habeas corpus timeliness prejudice analysis that it would be impossible for the state to re-prosecute the petitioner for a crime that occurred over 20 years ago).