153, 959 P.2d 311 (1998)). Although this is not a dispositive statement of consideration on the merits, and consideration on the merits does not “decide the question” of whether the petition was timely, it is a factor we consider. See Evans, 546 U.S. at 194, 126 S.Ct. 846 (explaining that we may consider whether the California Supreme Court considered a matter on the merits, but not take such consideration as “an absolute bellwether” on the timeliness question). Second, Maxwell has offered a compelling justification for his delay in filing his second state petition. Under California law, a petitioner must provide an explanation for any significant delay in applying for habeas relief. In re Clark, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d at 738; see also Evans, 546 U.S. at 201, 126 S.Ct. 846 (<HOLDING>); Chaffer, 592 F.3d at 1048 (denying a petition
holding that a six month delay was unreasonable holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable holding that a 15month delay of which four months were unexplained was reasonable in a felony prosecution holding that petitioners unexplained hence unjustified delay of at least six months was not reasonable for purposes of california law holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect