the sentencing court may apply credit against a sentence for time spent in custody for another charge or crime. The issue before us is whether, like the Court of Special Appeals, we adopt a plain meaning analysis of Section 6-218(b)(2) and determine that the mandatory credit for time served does not apply because the term “nolle prosequi” is absent, or, whether we construe Section 6-218(b)(2) as ambiguous. The decision whether to utilize a plain meaning analysis or an analysis based upon the ambiguity of a statute is made first by looking to see whether the Legislature has provided a definition for the term in question. Deville, 383 Md. at 229, 858 A.2d at 491 (“the legislative history of [the statute] fails to provide an actual definition.”); Melton, 379 Md. at 489, 842 A.2d at 753 (<HOLDING>). If there is no definition, we then ask
holding that the term indecent act required no further definition holding that michigan law provides no substantive right to parole holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract holding that the statute was ambiguous because it provides no definition of the term violation and provides no specific direction as to the proper unit of prosecution holding that first amendment provides no protection against private actions no matter how egregious