## Facts

- David Triggs, Jr. and Pamela Triggs were formerly married, had three children, and had a history of domestic violence.
- A court-issued protective order required Triggs to have “no contact” with Pamela Triggs.
- Over four days in September 2001, while the protective order was in effect, Triggs made dozens of phone calls to Pamela Triggs in Montgomery County.
- During many calls, Triggs threatened to rape and murder her and to murder their children, who were with him at the time.
- The State charged Triggs with harassment, telephone misuse/telephone threats, and 18 separate counts of violating the protective order, each tied to a specific call.
- The trial court imposed separate sentences for the non-protective-order offenses and imposed eighteen consecutive one-year sentences (some suspended) for the 18 protective-order violations.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed the 18 separate protective-order sentences, and the state’s highest court reviewed only whether imposing eighteen consecutive sentences for the protective-order counts was error.

## Issues

1. Whether the protective-order violation statute permits multiple punishments, one for each separate act of prohibited “contact,” or instead treats repeated contacts as a single continuing offense requiring merger.
2. Whether the rule of lenity requires merging multiple protective-order violation counts arising from repeated calls made over several days.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment upholding eighteen separate convictions and eighteen consecutive one-year sentences for the protective-order violations.
- It held that each phone call constituted a distinct act of prohibited “contact” and therefore a separate violation of the protective order.
- It rejected treating the four-day series of calls as a single continuing offense.
- It held the rule of lenity did not apply because legislative intent supported separate punishment for separate violations.
- It concluded consecutive sentencing for multiple distinct violations was within the trial court’s discretion and within statutory limits.

## Legal Principles

- The “unit of prosecution” turns on legislative intent: a statute may authorize separate convictions and sentences for each distinct act that violates a court order.
- Where a protective order forbids “contact,” each discrete contact (including each separate phone call) may be charged and punished as an independent offense.
- A course-of-conduct argument fails when the charged acts are separable in time and character and the statutory scheme treats repeated disobedience as repeatable violations rather than a single continuing offense.
- The rule of lenity applies only when the legislature’s intended unit of prosecution is genuinely ambiguous; it does not require merger when statutory text, structure, and purpose indicate separate punishments for separate violations.
- A sentencing court may impose consecutive sentences for multiple distinct offenses, subject to statutory maxima and review for legal error or abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court held that repeated phone calls made in violation of a no-contact protective order are separately punishable acts, allowing multiple convictions and consecutive sentences because each call is a discrete violation and the statute’s purpose supports strong enforcement of protective orders.


Triggs v. State, 382 Md. 27, 852 A.2d 114 (Md. 2004)