v. State, 160 Md.App. 391, 413, 864 A.2d 226 (2004), cert. denied, 386 Md. 181, 872 A.2d 46 (2005). And, “the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all statutory prerequisites for the application of an enhanced sentence.” Id. at 415, 864 A.2d 226; see Jones v. State, 324 Md. 32, 37, 595 A.2d 463 (1991). In Deville, 383 Md. at 231-32, 858 A.2d 484, the Court declined to “read § 286(d) to include home detention within the definition of ‘confinement ... in a correctional institution’” and said: “Where the Legislature has not specifically instructed the courts of Maryland to expand the scope of a penal statute, the rule of lenity dictates that we limit such laws to that which can be construed clear from the statute.” See also Melgar, 355 Md. at 342, 734 A.2d 712 (<HOLDING>) According to appellant, C.L. § 5-621 is
holding that the language of the statute is mandatory and the commission must act within 180 days holding that the time in pretrial detention may not be included to satisfy the statutory requirement under  286d of a term of confinement of at least 180 days holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act holding that punitive conditions of pretrial confinement implicate due process holding that a private right of action does not arise until 180 days after a charge has been filed