State v. Greco, 199 Md. App. 646

Greco was convicted of first degree murder, felony murder, and first degree rape; later resentencing occurred and appeals followed.
Greco filed for post-conviction relief under Md. Crim. Proc. Art. § 7-106(c), arguing for a new trial based on retrospective application of Hoey v. State and Simmons v. State.
Circuit Court granted post-conviction relief, vacating the first degree murder conviction and ordering a new trial on that count.
State appealed, contending § 7-106(c) cannot be used for retrospective relief where Hoey/Simmons are not constitutionally imposed standards or not previously unrecognized.
Greco argued the State lacked jurisdiction and that Hoey/Simmons created a new rule retroactively applicable, while the State argued the circuit court erred in applying the statute.
This Court held it has jurisdiction, found § 7-106(c)(2) inapplicable because the standards were not constitutionally imposed or not not previously recognized, and reversed the circuit court’s grant of a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 7-106(c)(2) retroactive relief applies	Greco contends Hoey/Simmons create retroactive standard.	State argues no retroactive application because standards not constitutionally imposed or not not previously recognized.	Inapplicable; retroactive relief rejected.
Whether the State's appeal is jurisdictionally proper	Greco argues appeal from the wrong order and lack of final order.	State asserts appeal from correct order; the circuit court clarified but original order stands.	Jurisdiction proper; appeal from original order proper.
Whether the standards in Hoey/Simmons were not previously recognized	Greco claims Hoey/Simmons impose new constitutional standards.	State contends the standards were not new or constitutionally mandated.	Standards were not newly recognized under § 7-106(c)(2); not retroactive.
Whether the standards are imposed by the Constitution	Greco asserts constitutional imposition of new standards.	State argues only one standard is constitutional and others are common-law.	Only the right to present a defense is constitutionally imposed; § 7-106(c)(2) inapplicable.

Hoey v. State, 311 Md. 473 (Md. 1988) (clarified admissibility of mental impairment evidence; not a constitutional mandate)
Simmons v. State, 313 Md. 33 (Md. 1988) (applied Hoey to imperfect self-defense; discussed evidentiary discretion)
Johnson v. State, 292 Md. 405 (Md. 1982) (held state must prove every element and defendant may rebut; diminished capacity discussed)
Faulkner, 301 Md. 482 (Md. 1984) (recognized imperfect self-defense; historical development)
Kanaras v. State, 54 Md. App. 568 (Md. 1983) (discussed psychiatric testimony limits in defense)