one of the purposes in establishing the offense of assault with intent to murder was to compound the punishment for attempted murder.” Id. at 322-23, 593 A.2d 671. In this case, like in Williams, the appellant’s attempted first degree murder conviction and first degree assault conviction arose out of the same acts: his firing a handgun at Clark as Clark retreated from the scene. While we disagree, as we have explained, -with the appellant’s assertion that the offenses merge under the “required evidence test,” we conclude that the sentences should have been merged under the rule of lenity. First degree assault of the (a)(2) modality is an attempt to cause, or actually causing, physical harm to another by use of a firearm. See Lamb v. State, 93 Md.App. 422, 428-29, 613 A.2d 402 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Like first degree assault of the (a)(1)
holding that virginia domestic assault and battery statute did not qualify holding that battery is clearly a factual determination readily resolved by the application of a legal standard defining battery to the facts in question holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery holding sentence enhancement statute did not create offense of attempted battery on school employee and thus minors adjudication of delinquency should have been based on finding that minor committed attempted battery holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two