Lopez v. State, 433 Md. 652

Jose F. Lopez was convicted and sentenced in 1986 to lengthy prison terms; he filed post-conviction petitions beginning in 2005 asserting claims including ineffective assistance of counsel.
The State first raised laches as a defense in 2008; the Montgomery County Circuit Court accepted laches and denied relief.
The Court of Special Appeals held laches can apply to post-conviction petitions but remanded because the record was insufficient to find prejudice from delay.
The statutory framework: the 1958 Maryland Post-Conviction Procedure Act allowed petitions to be filed “at any time”; in 1995 the Legislature added a 10-year limitations period prospectively (effective Oct. 1, 1995) and said it did not apply to sentences imposed before that date.
The principal legal question presented to the Court was whether the equitable doctrine of laches is an available defense to post-conviction petitions challenging sentences imposed before October 1, 1995.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether laches is an available defense to post-conviction petitions for sentences imposed before Oct. 1, 1995	The pre-1995 statute allowed petitions to be filed “at any time,” so laches is not available	Laches is a general equitable defense in civil actions and may bar stale post-conviction claims	Laches does not bar petitions challenging sentences imposed before Oct. 1, 1995; statute’s language, history, and Creighton support that conclusion
Whether Maryland Rule 2-323(g) makes laches automatically available in post-conviction proceedings	N/A (Lopez relies on statute and precedent)	The Rule lists laches as an affirmative defense; therefore it applies to post-conviction actions	Rule 2-323(g) is procedural only and does not establish the substantive availability of defenses; it does not make laches available where statute/precedent precludes it
Whether the 1995 amendments retroactively overruled prior construction (Creighton) and therefore allow laches for older sentences	Lopez: Legislature expressly limited the amendment’s prospective effect, so no retroactive change	State: Legislative history indicates concern about Creighton and intended to permit a timeliness bar	The Court concludes the Legislature did not intend retrospective application; the 1995 amendment applies prospectively only, so it did not authorize laches for pre-1995 sentences

State v. Williamson, 408 Md. 269 (court ruled 10-year limitation did not apply to sentences imposed before Oct. 1, 1995)
Creighton v. State, 87 Md. App. 736 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991) (held that the UPPA provision allowing petitions “at any time” precluded laches)
State v. Adams, 406 Md. 240 (discussed standard of review for legal questions)
Liddy v. Lamone, 398 Md. 233 (equitable laches doctrine described)
Fairbanks v. State, 331 Md. 482 (noted in dicta that laches "might" bar some collateral attacks)
Greco v. State, 427 Md. 477 (interpreting similar "at any time" language to preclude a laches-type defense)