the court no longer has jurisdiction, and the untried indictment, information, warrant, or complaint has no further force or effect. In that case, the court upon request of the prisoner or his counsel shall enter an order dismissing the untried indictment without prejudice. Md.Code (1957, 1996 Rep. Vol.), Art. 27, § 616S(e) (emphasis added). Therefore, in 2001, when Section 6-218(b)(2) was recodified, the General Assembly clearly knew the distinction between with and without prejudice and could have drawn that distinction in the statutory language at issue in this case. When faced with circumstances where the Legislature was familiar with certain language and did not entertain it, we look to the purpose of the statute. See State v. Thompson, 332 Md. 1,19, 629 A.2d 731, 740-41 (1993) (<HOLDING>). As we stated earlier, the purpose for
holding that based on the statutes purpose and its legislative history the legislature would have included specific language regarding drug rehabilitation if it had meant to include it holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language recognizing that the courts will reject that meaning when to accept it would lead to a result so plainly absurd that it could not possibly have been intended by the legislature or would defeat the plain legislative intention