In McGill v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1454, the court noted that the "basic timeframes" were "roughly the same as in Fleming v. Superior Court (2010)," but that in addition, the McGill petitioner had been charged with perjury, which was an "extremely fact intensive" crime, particularly since the indictment had not specified which part of her grand jury testimony was false. (McGill, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1513.) Noting that the petitioner was represented by a solo practitioner, the McGill court found there was "no way" that counsel "could possibly have completed the job in 60 days," and thus "no way" the court "could fail to find lack of opportunity." (Id. at p. 1514.) The McGill court also found "'unawareness' given the complexity of the issues," explaining that it would require a "line-by-line review" of the grand jury testimony as well as extensive legal research. (Ibid.)