unambiguous language of the statute,” nor do we “construe the statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application.” Price v. State, 378 Md. 378, 387, 835 A.2d 1221 (2003). The plain meaning of the verb “to modify” is “to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend.” Random House Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 871 (1996). The verb does not connote a change or alteration in a particular direction or of a particular type. Without language creating a restriction, a modification of a sentence, as that phrase is used in CJ section 1 2-302(c)(2)(ii), encompasses an alteration of the sentence, including a reduction. That meaning is evident, and the statutory language is not ambiguous. See Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431, 444, 903 A.2d 388 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Bennett v. State Dept. of Assessments &
holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo holding that question of ambiguity vel non of statutory language is one of law and therefore is addressed de novo on appellate review