See 1999 Md. Laws 3567-68. Again, however, this amendment did not include a provision which would have permitted persons serving a mandatory minimum sentence imposed prior to the 1999 amendment (such as Johnson) to seek a sentence review by a three-judge panel under § 645JA. The Court of Special Appeals, in Cox v. State, 134 Md.App. 465, 760 A.2d 290 (2000), noted this state of affairs, holding that the defendant, who was serving a mandatory sentence for daytime housebreaking, could not seek review of his sentence under § 645JA because he had been sentenced prior to the effective date of the statute allowing review of mandatory sentences, which contained no statement of retrospective application. Id. at 469-71, 760 A.2d at 292-94.

"When clear and convincing evidence is required, plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion to place in the ultimate fact finder an abiding conviction that the truth of their factual contentions are highly probable." St. Francis De Sales Fed. Credit Union, 2002 ME 127, ¶ 26, 818 A.2d 995; Francis v. Stinson, 2000 ME 173, ¶ 39, 760 A.2d 290 ("a claim for fraud must be proved by evidence that shows the existence of fraud is highly probable"). Based on the whole of the record, the plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to establish any of the elements of fraud by clear and convincing proof and therefore, the court denies plaintiff's fraud claims.