BATTAGLIA, J.

According to the statement of facts presented by the State during the guilty plea proceeding involving Petitioner, Sam Yonga, it was late in 2006 when Yonga, then a 25 year-old immigrant from Sierra Leone, traveled from Prince George's County to an apartment in Baltimore County to meet with T.R.,1 a 13 year old girl who lived there with her mother. He had become acquainted with T.R. over a phone chat line some weeks earlier, during which conversation Yonga told T.R. that his name was Mohammad.

Yonga and T.R. decided to meet on a day that T.R. would pretend to be ill, in order to stay home from school. After they met at the apartment, the two began kissing, and Yonga, at times, touched T.R.'s breasts. Eventually, the pair moved to T.R.'s mother's bedroom; T.R. removed her clothing while Yonga took off his pants and underwear. After Yonga and T.R. moved to the bed, they began to have sexual intercourse when they were interrupted by the unexpected return of T.R.'s mother.

Yonga quickly left the apartment, and dropped his cell phone, which was retrieved by T.R.'s mother, who called police and reported the incident, after having learned Yonga's name and address from his mother whose phone number was in the cell phone. T.R.'s mother then took her daughter to a local clinic for an examination and for a shot of Depo-Provera, a birth control implant.2 Yonga initially denied knowing T.R. and denied having initiated sexual intercourse, but admitted to "kissing and touching" her on a porch outside the apartment.

Yonga was arrested and charged with second degree rape3 and a third degree sexual offense.4 He pled guilty to the third degree sexual offense during a colloquy conducted by Judge Dana Levitz, then an active judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. During the colloquy, Judge Levitz assured that Yonga's plea was given freely, voluntarily and knowingly and that Yonga understood that the plea had been negotiated as one binding upon the Judge in terms of sentencing:5

In exchange for your plea to that charge the State will dismiss the more serious second-degree sex offense. In addition, the State and the Defense have agreed that the sentence that I will impose is 364 days. I'm going to suspend all but six months of the sentence and that six months will be served at the Baltimore County Detention Center. They've agreed that the sentencing will happen on the June the 4th.

That's what I understand to be the total plea agreement in this case. Is that your understanding of it?

Judge Levitz also advised Yonga of possible implications of the guilty plea on his immigration status:6

Judge Levitz then explained to Yonga that, by pleading guilty, he was waiving various rights to which he would have been entitled during a trial and his right to appeal:

If this were a trial you could sit next to Mr. Fatemi and you wouldn't have to say a word. You could just sit next to him. Nobody could make you get on the stand and admit you did anything.

You're giving up the right to appeal by proceeding in this way, you're giving up the right to complain that anything the police may have done that you think violated your rights.

Judge Levitz then reinforced his commitment to be bound by the disposition agreed upon by the State and Yonga's counsel:

Judge Levitz also inquired whether Yonga had "any additions, corrections or modifications to those facts?" to which Yonga's counsel replied:

Judge Levitz accepted Yonga's guilty plea:

During the sentencing hearing approximately one month later, at which Yonga's family allocuted regarding Yonga's mistake, Yonga expressed his remorse to the court:

Pursuant to the plea agreement, Judge Levitz sentenced Yonga to 364 days in the Baltimore County Detention Center, with all but six months suspended. Yonga also was required to register as a sex offender.

Six years later, in 2013, after allegedly reconnecting with T.R. through social media, Yonga petitioned for a Writ of Actual Innocence, under Section 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code,7 in which he alleged that T.R. "recanted" her original statements given to police. Judge Sherrie Bailey of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied Yonga's petition on the merits, after a hearing.

Yonga appealed the denial, arguing that Judge Bailey, in finding Yonga did not sufficiently establish newly discovered evidence as required under Section 8-301, erred. The State countered that the Writ of Actual Innocence was not applicable to a person who had pled guilty and, in the alternative, that the Circuit Court's denial on the merits was correct.

Our intermediate appellate court affirmed in a reported opinion. Yonga v. State, 221 Md.App. 45, 108 A.3d 448 (2015). Judge Charles E. Moylan, writing for the Court of Special Appeals, explained the history of Section 8-301 and its affinity to the motion for a new trial under Rule 4-331, determining, primarily, that "a non-reversed guilty plea is invulnerable to a Writ of Actual Innocence." Id. at 77, 108 A.3d at 467. The Court of Special Appeals also determined that Judge Bailey did not clearly err in her credibility determinations, and, therefore, did not abuse her discretion in denying Yonga's petition, although it emphasized that, "First and foremost is our primary holding that the Writ of Actual Innocence does not apply to a guilty plea." Id. at 99, 108 A.3d at 480.

We granted Yonga's petition for a writ of certiorari, Yonga v. State, 442 Md. 515, 113 A.3d 624 (2015), which presented the following questions:

In addressing the issue of whether an individual who pled guilty can later file a Petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence under Section 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure Article, we initially acknowledge that the statute is silent on the issue. The history of the legislation, our implementation through our Rules as well as our understanding of what "actual innocence" means, juxtaposed against what a guilty plea involves, however, inform our conclusion that a person who has pled guilty may not later avail himself or herself of the relief afforded by the Petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence.

Section 8-301(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article provides that "newly discovered" evidence is the foundation for a Writ of Actual Innocence, such evidence that would have created a "substantial or significant possibility" of a different result and which could not have been discovered within the time period required for a motion for a new trial:

Md.Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 8-301 (emphasis added). Section 8-301 was enacted in 2009 by the Maryland General Assembly through the enactments of Senate Bill 486 ("S.B. 486") and House Bill 366 ("H.B. 366") and reconciliation in conference.10 2009 Maryland Laws, Chapter 744. Section 8-301 provides:

The history of the legislation reflects that Section 8-301 was intended to expand the breadth of a motion for a new trial under Rule 4-331(c)(1).11

In testimony submitted by Senator Delores Kelley, one of the sponsors of the bill, to the Senate Committee on Judicial Proceedings, she expressed the need for a vehicle for one who was "wrongfully convicted" to seek judicial review when "new evidence" came to the fore, when DNA was not an issue,12 when a new trial motion was barred and "no claim of a constitutional defect involved in the case management and/or in the trial" was alleged:

The standard adopted by Section 8-301(a)(1) that newly discovered evidence would have to create "a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different," in the earlier trial, as with Rule 4-331(c)(1), was discussed in a letter contained in the bill file, authored by Suzanne Drouet, an attorney with the State Office of the Public Defender.13 Ms. Drouet relied on a number of our opinions as well as others from our intermediate appellate court interpreting Rule 4-331(c)(1), as well as those involving ineffective assistance of counsel claims and Brady violations,14 alleged by individuals convicted after a trial. In each of the cases cited we, as well as the Court of Special Appeals, emphasized the importance of having the judge who considered the newly discovered evidence evaluate its significance against that which had been developed at trial: "[t]he trial judge in the present matter weighed the newly discovered evidence and considered its significance in relation to the evidence already presented at trial." Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637, 670, 821 A.2d 1, 20 (2003) (emphasis added). See also State v. Williams, 392 Md. 194, 234, 896 A.2d 973, 996 (2006). Ms. Drouet also cited the following cases: Wilson v. State, 363 Md. 333, 352, 768 A.2d 675, 685 (2001) (concluding that the newly discovered evidence was material, because "had the evidence been disclosed, there is a substantial possibility that the verdict in the Petitioner's case would have been different"); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 430-31, 578 A.2d 734, 741 (1990) (the relevant inquiry is whether "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome", had evidence been admitted, exists such that "the outcome might well have been different."); Yorke v. State, 315 Md. 578, 590, 556 A.2d 230, 235 (1989)("[T]he judge found that the newly discovered evidence, weighed with the evidence before the jury at the trial on the merits, did not affect the verdict to the extent that the outcome of the trial would be different."); Jackson v. State, 164 Md.App. 679, 713, 884 A.2d 694, 714 (2005) (a trial judge's discretion requires his assessing the weight and credibility of the new evidence, as he is "the only judicial figure who had his thumb on the pulse of the trial," and, therefore, "[his] exercise of discretion in evaluating credibility is indispensable."); Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420, 433, 621 A.2d 910, 917 (1993) (identifying the applicable standard as whether the new evidence created a "substantial or significant possibility that the verdict of the trier of fact would have been affected" by its absence). The remaining documents contained in the bill file for S.B. 486, including its Floor Report, also echo the relationship between the "substantial probability" standards under Section 8-301 and Rule 4-331(c).15

With respect to this legislative history, Yonga argues had the Legislature intended Section 8-301 to apply only to persons who had been convicted after trial that it would have placed such language directly in the statute. He refers to Virginia's Writ of Actual Innocence Statute, which expressly limits the availability of the writ to "a person who was convicted of a felony upon a plea of not guilty", in support of his position.16

Yonga also points us to House Bill 919 (H.B. 919), introduced by Delegates Curt Anderson and Kathleen Dumais in 2010, the year following the enactment of Section 8301, which proposed numerous changes to the Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence. One of its many provisions, like the Virginia statute, would have explicitly limited the application of the writ only to a person who had entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged.17

H.B. 919 proposed changes to the wording of Section 8-301(a)(1), modifying the standard to be applied when evaluating newly discovered evidence.18 Passage of the proposed bill would have also created a new section, 8-302, further limiting the petition to one motion per trial or sentence imposed and requiring that each motion be made within one year after discovery of the new evidence.19 Other alterations to Section 8-301 would have required the court to allow the State to file a response to the petition within 60 days, modified the petitioner's burden of proof to that of clear and convincing evidence, added a new section 8-303 providing for appeals from orders issued pursuant to Section 8-301 and limited the court's relief to the grant of a new trial. The proposal also included the language upon which Yonga relies, that "If a person is convicted of a felony, an attempt to commit a felony, or a solicitation to commit a felony and the person entered a plea of not guilty to the charges[.]"

Our jurisprudence regarding rejected legislation reveals that while intent may be discerned from legislative inaction, it is considered most appropriate generally only when a specific bill has been repeatedly brought to the General Assembly and rejected:

Moore v. State, 388 Md. 623, 641-42, 882 A.2d 256, 266-67 (2005).

In the present case, H.B. 919, containing a number of provisions, received an unfavorable vote in the Judiciary Committee. The fact that the Committee vote was unfavorable regarding a multilayered bill is not persuasive that the Legislature was, in so doing, adhering to the viewpoint advocated by Yonga.

Moving forward, with respect to Rule 4-331(c)(1), which informed the standard adopted in Section 8-301(a)(1), its history reflects that the standard of "substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different" was to be applied when a conviction resulted from a trial. The rule traces its origin to two Rules, 759 and 764. Rule 759(a) provided for a motion for new trial "in the interest of justice" in a criminal setting, but looked to Rule 567 which applied to civil cases for its procedural requirement:

Rule 759(a) (1976). Rule 764(b)(3) provided a vehicle for a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence "which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time" to comply with Rule 759:

Rule 764(b)(3) (1976).

In 1978, Rule 759(a) was merged with Rule 764(b)(3) to create a new rule, Rule 770, requiring that a motion for new trial be filed within three days of the verdict or within 90 days if based on newly discovered evidence:

Rule 770 (1978).

When the rules were subsequently renumbered in 1984, Rule 4-331 replaced Rule 770, and the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence was shifted to paragraph (c), which permitted the filing of the motion when the evidence was not discoverable by due diligence in time to file within the time limitation specified under paragraph (a).21 Rule 4-331 (1985). Rule 4-331(c)(1), in its current form, provides for filing a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence within one year from the date of the sentence or mandate. Rule 4-331(c)(1) provides:

Rule 4-331 (2013).

No case has been located, nor have the parties provided a citation to any, in which a motion for new trial under Rule 4-331(c)(1) has been asserted when the proponent pled guilty. In every case found, the opinion grappled with whether there was a substantial possibility that a different result would have occurred in the trial, whether jury or bench, as a result of the newly discovered evidence. See Grandison v. State, 425 Md. 34, 38 A.3d 352 (2012); Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 855 A.2d 291 (2004); Campbell, 373 Md. at 637, 821 A.2d at 1; Argyrou v. State, 349 Md. 587, 709 A.2d 1194 (1998); Wiggins v. State, 324 Md. 551, 597 A.2d 1359 (1991); Yorke, 315 Md. at 578, 556 A.2d at 230; Stevenson v. State, 299 Md. 297, 473 A.2d 450 (1984) (motion for a new trial under then Rule 770 b); Crippen v. State, 207 Md.App. 236, 52 A.3d 111 (2012); Ramirez v. State, 178 Md.App. 257, 941 A.2d 1141 (2008); Fields v. State, 168 Md.App. 22, 895 A.2d 339 (2006); Mack v. State, 166 Md.App. 670, $91 A.2d 369 (2006); Jackson, 164 Md.App. at 679, 884 A.2d at 694; Gravely v. State, 164 Md.App. 76, 882 A.2d 889 (2005); Newman v. State, 156 Md.App. 20, 845 A.2d 71 (2003), rev'd, 384 Md. 285, 863 A.2d 321 (2004); Berringer v. Steele, 133 Md.App. 442, 758 A.2d 574 (2000); Love, 95 Md.App. at 420, 621 A.2d at 910; Bloodsworth v. State, 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 (1988).

In Campbell, for example, we reiterated the importance of the trial judge's role in weighing that which was newly discovered against evidence presented during the earlier trial, noting that, "This Court long has recognized that a new trial may be granted by the judge in a criminal case tried to a jury." 373 Md. at 655, 821 A.2d at 12 (emphasis added). In affirming Campbell's conviction, we recognized that, "The trial judge in the present matter weighed the newly discovered evidence and considered its significance in relation to the evidence already presented at trial." Id. at 670, 821 A.2d at 20 (emphasis added). We concluded in that case that the trial judge did not "exceed" his discretion in determining the newly discovered evidence was unlikely to have led to a different result:

Id. at 672, 821 A.2d at 21.

Yonga, though, asserts one of our recent cases, State v. Matthews, 415 Md. 286, 999 A.2d 1050 (2010), undermines the conclusion that to invoke Section 8-301 one must have been convicted after trial. In the case, Matthews had pled guilty to second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. Following a string of unsuccessful motions and petitions for post-conviction relief that consumed six years, Matthews filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which was denied without a hearing. Matthews appealed, arguing that under Rule 4-331(c)(1) he was entitled to a hearing on his motion. Our intermediate appellate court agreed with Matthews, and we granted certiorari to address whether a hearing was required under 4-331(c)(1).

We held that because Section 8-301 had been enacted while the case was pending and there was a dearth of "rules of procedure to guide the process" Matthews's motion for a new trial, untimely under Rule 4-331(c)(1), could be treated as a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence and we left the issue of whether the petition met the requirements of the statute for the circuit court to address:

Id., 415 Md. at 298, 999 A.2d at 1057. We, therefore, did not decide, as Yonga suggests, that Matthews was entitled to proceed on a Writ of Actual Innocence.

Why, though, is a trial the appropriate vehicle against which we measure the "substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different"? Judge Moylan, writing for the Court of Special Appeals, eloquently described the reasons why trials present the essential paradigm in the weighing process against which the "substantial or significant possibility" standard manifest in Rule 4-331(c)(1) and a bedrock of 8-301 is measured:

Yonga, 221 Md.App. at 68-69, 108 A.3d at 462. As a result of the different criteria utilized at trial and a guilty plea, the test of the persuasive weight of the newly discovered evidence contained in 8-301(a)(1), with its foundation in 4-331(c)(1), would not be applicable where the defendant had pled guilty:

Id. at 69-70, 108 A.3d at 462-63. Thus, the weighing mechanism required by the "substantial or significant possibility" standard adopted in Section 8-301(a)(1), and judicially determined through Rule 4-331(c)(1), can only be utilized after a jury or bench trial resulting in conviction has occurred. See Argyrou v. State, 349 Md. 587, 600, 709 A.2d 1194, 1200 (1998) ("It may be said that the breadth of a trial judge's discretion to grant or deny a new trial is not fixed and immutable, it will expand or contract depending upon the nature of the factors being considered, and the extent to which its exercise depends upon the opportunity the trial judge had to feel the pulse of the trial, and to rely on his or her own impressions in determining questions of fairness and justice.").

In contrast, a guilty plea contains none of the facets of a trial, evidence production and credibility determinations, for example, that informs the court when evaluating whether the proffered newly discovered evidence had a substantial or significant possibility that a different result would have occurred. When an individual pleads guilty, credibility determinations are not tested, reliability and validity are not challenged, and relevance is not an issue. The gravamen of a guilty plea is whether it was undertaken by the accused "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 2405, 162 L.Ed.2d 143, 153 (2005) (internal quotation omitted). A trial judge, in accepting a guilty plea, is primarily concerned with insuring its validity, not with the weight of the evidence.

We agree, then, with our brethren on the Court of Special Appeals that only a conviction garnered after a bench or jury trial can provide the fodder against which the standard in Section 8-301(a)(1) can be measured. Our conclusion has been well articulated by one of our former members, Judge Alan Wilner, now retired, who as chair of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure presented to this Court Rule 4-332 to implement Section 8-301.22 During a discussion on all fours with the issue before us, Judge Wilner, responding directly to whether a guilty plea was an appropriate vehicle against which an 8-301 petition could be measured, stated:

As to whether newly discovered evidence might suggest the defendant would not have pled guilty, had the evidence been known at the time and its relation to actual innocence, Judge Wilner responded:

We agree, as we did when we adopted Alternative B.

In conclusion, the history of the legislation, our implementation through our Rules as well as our understanding of what "actual innocence" means, juxtaposed against what a guilty plea involves, support our conclusion that a person who has pled guilty may not later avail himself or herself of the relief afforded by the Petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE PETITIONER.