Walker v. State, 170 A.3d 837

Walker was charged with two counts of constructive criminal contempt and four counts of failure to provide child support under FL § 10-203 for nonpayment to his four minor children (periods from March 2013 through at least October 2015).
A consent order (2006) required $500/month, later increased to $700/month in 2015; at trial Walker was over $68,000 in arrears.
DSS took collection steps (contact, demand letter, garnishment, license suspension) and testified Walker earned income in several months when he made no payments.
Witness testimony: mother/recipient Coleman said Walker gave repeated promises to pay but did not; DSS witness Buell testified Walker earned income in at least seven nonpayment months and had no express claim he intended not to pay.
Walker testified he sometimes worked (Ruppert Landscaping, Eagle Contracting), sometimes received unemployment, looked for work “two or three times a month,” and denied intentional nonpayment.
Jury convicted on all counts; court sentenced to three years with all but 12 months suspended on each count, concurrent; Walker appealed.

Issue	Walker's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of willful contempt/failure to pay	Evidence only showed nonpayment; Walker lacked ability to pay and searched for work; Dorsey/Ashford require more than missed payments	Evidence showed willfulness: signed consent orders, repeated promises, earned income in nonpayment months, inadequate job search, DSS collection efforts	Affirmed — evidence sufficient for jury to infer willfulness and sustain convictions
Merger of sentences (criminal contempt vs. failure to pay; multiple child-support counts)	Convictions should merge under rule of lenity or fundamental fairness because based on same acts	Offenses serve different purposes (statutory support enforcement vs. common-law contempt); lenity inapplicable; no contemporaneous objection on fairness ground	Affirmed — no merger under rule of lenity; fairness argument not preserved on appeal

Dorsey v. State, 356 Md. 324 (insufficiency where record lacked evidence of ability to pay or contumacious intent)
Ashford v. State, 358 Md. 552 (insufficiency where State showed only noncompliance and no proof of ability to pay or willful refusal)
Potts v. State, 231 Md. App. 398 (framework for merger tests and preservation rules)
Monoker v. State, 321 Md. 214 (rule of lenity explained for statutory interpretation)
Khalifa v. State, 382 Md. 400 (rule of lenity can apply where one offense is statutory and the other derives from common law)
State v. Berry, 287 Md. 491 (purpose of child support statute: direct support and punishment to prevent public burden)