dissenting.
I.
The end result reached by the Court in the instant case is that, because the defendant committed fellatio on a 15-year-*426old boy, he is guilty of two crimes and the maximum punishment is one year incarceration. Had the youth been over 15 years of age, then the defendant would be guilty of only one crime, but the maximum punishment would have been ten years’ incarceration. It is bad enough for the Court to reach this illogical result, but to reach it when charged with the duty of effectuating the intent of the legislature is an affront to that branch of government.
Harry Whinna Lancaster was 53 years old when he met 15-year-old Louis W. in July of 1988. Lancaster initially ingratiated himself to Louis by paying for an occasional meal and sponsoring a night at the skating rink. Lancaster began inviting Louis to his home. Louis testified that, on the first visit, Lancaster showed him his gun collection and the two watched television. Two days later, Lancaster picked up Louis and, on the way to Lancaster’s home, bought an X-rated video tape. Once home, Lancaster put the tape in his VCR and, after twenty minutes of viewing, Lancaster pulled down Louis’s pants and performed “oral sex” on Louis. Afterward, the two went to the skating rink where Lancaster paid Louis’s admission. This scenario became the blueprint for regular triweekly rendezvous where Lancaster would have “oral sex” with Louis. Louis testified that approximately six months after the first encounter, he contacted the police because he was feeling “bad about [himjself’ and didn’t want to become like Lancaster.
Lancaster was charged and convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Allegany County of one count of committing an unnatural or perverted sexual practice under Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, § 5541 and one count of committing a fourth degree sexual offense under § 464C(a)(2). Both offenses were alleged to have occurred over approximately a six-month period from July, 1988 through January, 1989. Lancaster received the maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 for the *427conviction under § 554 with five years of the ten-year sentence suspended and five years’ probation. Lancaster also received the maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine under § 464C, that term of imprisonment was suspended and five years probation was imposed to run concurrently with the probation for the suspended portion of the sentence imposed under § 554. Lancaster appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals. The intermediate appellate court vacated the conviction and ten-year sentence for unnatural or perverted sex practices holding that, under the required evidence test, that conviction and sentence merged into the conviction and one-year suspended sentence for a fourth degree sex offense under § 464C. The State filed a petition for certiorari which this Court granted.2
I fully agree with the majority’s analysis that
“We have often pointed out that ‘ “[u]nder settled Maryland common law, the usual rule for deciding whether one criminal offense merges into another or whether one is the lesser included offense of the other, ... when both offenses are based on the same act or acts, is the so-called ‘required evidence test.’ ” ’
The required evidence test ‘ “focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter.” ’ Stated another way, the ‘ “required evidence is that which is minimally necessary to *428secure a conviction for each ... offense. If each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, or in other words, if each offense contains an element which the other does not,” ’ there is no merger under the required evidence test even though both offenses are based upon the same act or acts. ‘ “But, where only one offense requires proof of an additional fact, so that all elements of one offense are present in the other,” and where both “offenses are based on the same act or acts, ... merger follows....’”
******
When applying the required evidence test to multi-purpose offenses, i.e., offenses having alternative elements, a court must ‘examin[e] the alternative elements relevant to the case at issue.’ ” (Citations omitted).
332 Md. at 391-92, 631 A.2d at 456-57.
In United States v. Dixon, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), a majority of the Supreme Court overruled its recent decision in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), and reiterated that the Blockburger or “same elements” test is the only test for determining whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes. Dixon, — U.S. at — & n. 13, 113 S.Ct. at 2862 & n. 13, 125 L.Ed.2d at 575 & n. 13 (interpreting Gavieres v. United States, infra, to conclude that successive prosecutions are permissible if “the Blockburger test (and only the Blockburger test) [is] satisfied” (emphasis in original)). See also Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342-44, 31 S.Ct. 421, 422-23, 55 L.Ed. 489, 490 (1911) and Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344, 378-81, 26 S.Ct. 688, 697-99, 50 L.Ed. 1057, 1070-71 (1906) (both allowing successive prosecutions according to an application and satisfaction of the “same elements” test). Included within the Blockburger test is the common law doctrine prohibiting successive prosecution of a lesser included offense. In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct. 672, 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889). “Nielsen simply applies the common proposition, entirely in accord with Blockburger, that prosecution for a greater offense ... bars prosecution for a lesser *429included offense.... ” Dixon, — U.S. at — , 113 S.Ct. at 2860, 125 L.Ed.2d at 573. “The collateral-estoppel effect attributed to the Double Jeopardy Clause, see Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), [also] may bar a later prosecution for a separate offense where the Government has lost an earlier prosecution involving the same facts.” Dixon, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2860, 125 L.Ed.2d at 573 (emphasis in original).
Separate prosecutions are always precluded and separate sentences are normally precluded when, focusing on the required elements of the offenses rather than the defendant’s criminal conduct, we cannot identify an element in each offense which is not common to the other offense. Id. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2855-56, 125 L.Ed.2d at 567-68. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) (delineating required elements test). Our inquiry therefore must be whether the fourth degree sexual offense under Art. 27, § 464C(a)(2), for which Lancaster was convicted, and the unnatural or perverted sex practice offense under Art. 27, § 554, for which Lancaster was convicted, each contain an element which the other does not. If after analyzing the statutes each offense does not contain a distinct element not required by the other, then separate punishments may not be imposed unless the legislature intended otherwise.
The specific fourth degree sex offense of which Lancaster was convicted was engaging in fellatio “with another person who is 14 or 15 years of age and the person performing the sexual act is four or more years older than the other person____” Art. 27, § 464C(a)(2).3 The specific statutory un*430natural or perverted sex act that Lancaster was convicted of was “taking into his ... mouth the sexual organ of any other person.” Art. 27, § 554.4
Beginning our “required elements” analysis, it is obvious that the fourth degree sex offense contains an age element which unnatural or perverted sex practices does not, because the person performing the act must be four or more years older than the 14 or 15-year-old victim. The next inquiry is *431whether the unnatural or perverted sex practice of “taking into [one’s] mouth the sexual organ of [another]” requires more than, and therefore is different from, the fourth degree sexual act of fellatio. Since the legislature used different terms, i.e., “fellatio” under § 464C and “taking into [one’s] mouth the sexual organ of [another]” in § 554, we may logically assume the statutes meant to punish different acts. The trial judge and both parties seemed to be under the impression that both statutes required different acts. Without any objection, the trial judge gave the following instruction to the jury:
“Now there are two charges that you must consider in this case. First, a statutory offense known as sexual offense in the fourth degree. In order to convict the Defendant of a sexual offense in the fourth degree, the State must prove the following elements: that the Defendant committed fellatio with the witness Louis [W.]; that at the time the witness Louis [W.] was either fourteen or fifteen years of age; and that at the time the Defendant was at least four years older than the witness Louis [W.].
Now fellatio means that the Defendant applied his mouth to the sexual organ of the witness Louis [WJ....
s|« :js
Secondly, the Defendant is charged with the offense of unnatural and perverted sexual practices.... In order for the Defendant to be convicted of this offense, the State must prove to you unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant took into his mouth the sexual organ of the witness Louis [W.].” (Emphasis added).
If there ever was any doubt that fellatio as defined in the sexual offense statutes is different from the act of taking into his or her mouth the sexual organ of any other person under § 554, it was clearly resolved in Thomas v. State, 301 Md. 294, 483 A.2d 6 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 1856, 85 L.Ed.2d 153 (1985).
In Thomas, Chief Judge Murphy writing for the Court stated:
*432“Appellant alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for the first degree sexual offense of forcing Ms. Wilkins to perform fellatio upon him. He argues that Code, Art. 27, § 554, as interpreted in Gooch v. State, 34 Md.App. 331, 367 A.2d 90 (.1976), requires proof that the sexual organ penetrated the mouth. The evidence presented at trial indicated that Ms. Wilkins was forced to ‘kiss’ appellant’s penis. Since there was no showing that the mouth was penetrated, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the first degree sexual offense conviction.
Appellant’s contention is meritless. Section 554 pertains to the crime of ‘unnatural or perverted sexual practices’; he was not charged with violating this law. Rather, appellant was convicted of a first degree sexual offense as set forth in § 464(a) of Art. 27, which provides:
‘A person is guilty of a sexual offense in the first degree if the person engages in a sexual act:
(1) With another person by force or threat of force against the will and without the consent of the other person, and:
(i) Employs or displays a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which the other person reasonably concludes is a dangerous or deadly weapon.... ’
* * * * * *
The term ‘sexual act,’ as used in this section, is defined by Art. 27, § 461(e) to include ‘fellatio’ — a word not defined in the statute. We think that the legislature intended to give ‘fellatio’ its common, ordinary and well-accepted meaning. Black’s Law Dictionary 743 (4th ed. rev. 1968) defines fellatio as an ‘offense committed with the male sexual organ and the mouth.’ See also People v. Sohmers, 55 Misc.2d 925, 286 N.Y.S.2d 714, 717 (Crim.Ct.196[8]); State v. McParlin, 422 A.2d 742, 743 n. 2 (R.I.1980). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary gives the following definition: ‘the practice of obtaining sexual satisfaction by oral stimulation of the penis.’ Under the general view, *433proof of penetration is not required; all that must be shown is some contact between the mouth and the male organ. Carter v. State, 122 Ga.App. 21, 176 S.E.2d 238 (1970); State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 2843, 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979); McDonald v. State, 513 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). Therefore, we hold that fellatio, within the meaning of § 461(e), encompasses the oral contact with the male sex organ involved in this case.”
Id. at 320-21, 483 A.2d at 19-20. Thomas establishes that § 554 contains a requirement that the fourth degree sexual offense under § 464C does not. The specific statutory offense, under § 554, of taking into one’s mouth the sexual organ of another requires more than fellatio, which is simply, oral genital contact under § 464C. Since each offense contains a requirement that the other does not, the two convictions do not violate the Blockburger required evidence test and there can be separate convictions.5
II.
Although it is clear that the Blockburger test is the only test for successive prosecutions, cumulative sentences arising from the same prosecution may implicate additional issues such as the rule of lenity and merger.
*434Successive prosecutions are barred if the two offenses are the same under the Blockburger test or violate the Ashe v. Swenson collateral-estoppel prohibition. Cumulative (as distinguished from successive) sentences present slightly different considerations. I will make no attempt to discuss all of the somewhat perplexing cases discussing, for sentencing purposes, common law double jeopardy, constitutional double jeopardy, merger, and the rule of lenity. I will even assume for the purpose of the cumulative sentences discussion that cumulative sentences imposed by the trial judge violate the Blockburger test and implicate all common law prohibitions, including the rule of lenity and merger, but that does not end our inquiry. Obviously, the legislature can change the common law by statute. Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 529, 530 A.2d 275, 291-92 (1987); Jones v. State, 303 Md. 323, 337 n. 10, 493 A.2d 1062, 1069 n. 10 (1985); Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309, 341, 396 A.2d 1054, 1073 (1979). See also Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 5(a). Further, as I will discuss, the legislature can even provide for cumulative sentences for offenses that clearly are the same under the Blockburger test. For example, the legislature can provide in one statute that robbery is punishable by ten years and in a second statute that robbery with a handgun is punishable by ten years, which sentence shall be in addition to any sentence imposed for robbery. Robbery is a lesser included offense within robbery with a handgun, and the two offenses are the same under the Blockburger test since each does not contain an element not found in the other. Yet, as we will see, the legislature is free to authorize cumulative punishments.
In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that “simply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes.” Id. at 368, 103 S.Ct. at 679, 74 L.Ed.2d at 543. See also Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 500 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2541 n. 8, 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 433 n. 8 (1984) (“Even if the crimes *435are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that a state legislature intended to authorize cumulative punishments, a court’s inquiry is at an end.”); United States v. Woodward, 469 U.S. 105, 107-10, 105 S.Ct. 611, 612-13, 83 L.Ed.2d 518, 520-22 (1985) (determining that cumulative punishment was permissible for convictions under the federal currency reporting statute and the false statement statute, where each conviction was based on the same conduct). For additional Supreme Court cases categorizing the Blockburger test as a “rule of statutory construction” in the single prosecution/multiple punishment context, see Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143, 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981); Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 1437-38, 63 L.Ed.2d 715, 723 (1980).
Even before the Supreme Court decided Missouri v. Hunter, this Court in Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 274 n. 4, 373 A.2d 262, 269 n. 4 (1977), pointed out that multiple punishments under two different statutory provisions, deemed the same offense under the required evidence test, could in some circumstances be cumulatively imposed for the same act where the legislature expressly indicated such an intent.
In several other post-Newton cases, this Court has recognized that the legislature may punish certain conduct by imposing punishment pursuant to two separate statutory offenses which would otherwise be deemed the same pursuant to the Blockburger required evidence test. In Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 558 A.2d 715 (1989), Judge McAuliffe writing for the Court stated, “when dealing with the question of multiple punishments imposed after a single trial, and based on the same conduct, a critical question is one of legislative intent. The Blockburger test is helpful in such cases as an aid in determining legislative intent, but is not dispositive.” Id. at 324, 558 A.2d at 720.
In Whack v. State, 288 Md. 137, 149, 416 A.2d 265, 271 (1980), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 450 U.S. 990, 101 S.Ct. 1688, 68 L.Ed.2d 189 (1981), this Court, following the legislature’s intent, sustained separate convictions and sen*436tences for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony and for the underlying felony (armed robbery) despite the fact that the two violations would be deemed the same offense under the Blockburger test. The Court stated: “The imposition of multiple punishment ... is often particularly dependent upon the intent of the Legislature.” Id., at 143, 416 A.2d at 268.
More recently, this Court in Frazier v. State, 318 Md. 597, 569 A.2d 684 (1990), held that the, conviction for carrying a handgun did not merge into the conviction for possessing a revolver, even if the two offenses were deemed the same under the required evidence test, because we determined that the legislature did not intend to prohibit separate penalties for violation of the two statutes. Id. at 614-15, 569 A.2d at 693. In Frazier, the Court relied upon Whack acknowledging that “ ‘[t]he imposition of multiple punishment ... is often particularly dependent upon the intent of the Legislature.’ ” Id. at 613, 569 A.2d at 692 (quoting Whack, 288 Md. at 143, 416 A.2d at 268).
The Whack/Frazier line of cases recognizes that common law merger principles may be modified by the legislature and that separate punishment for two offenses deemed the same under the Blockburger test is a question of legislative intent.
III. Legislative Intent
The issue before this Court, therefore, would seem to be one of statutory construction and dependent on the intent of the legislature. The conclusion reached by the majority suggests that unless the sentencing court merged the ten-year sentence for violation of Art. 27, § 554, into the one-year sentence for violation of Art. 27, § 464C, the punishment would have exceeded the one-year maximum intended by the legislature.
In determining whether cumulative sentences may be imposed for the same offense, this Court has said: “The key, of course, is legislative intent. As helpful as the various rules of statutory construction may be in determining legislative intent, perhaps the soundest guidance comes from the Supreme *437Court’s admonition that we give the language of a statute a ‘commonsensical meaning.’ ” Randall Book, 316 Md. at 324, 558 A.2d at 720 (quoting United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221, 73 S.Ct. 227, 229, 97 L.Ed. 260, 264 (1952)). The Court also stated in Randall Book that “[t]he Blockburger test is helpful ... as an aid in determining legislative intent, but [it] is not dispositive.” Id. The invocation of common sense is also important in ensuring a reasonable result. See D &Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534, 538, 578 A.2d 1177, 1179-80 (1990) (stating that “construction of a statute which is unreasonable, illogical, unjust, or inconsistent ■with common sense should be avoided”).
In Eldridge v. State, 329 Md. 307, 619 A.2d 531 (1993), the Court discussed how we go about ascertaining legislative intent in cases where the defendant claims his separate sentences under two different statutes violate double jeopardy/merger principles. We said:
“We approach the propriety of the two sentences ... from the pinnacle we have reached in our many attempts to divine legislative intent. We have set out the guidelines so often that there is no need to detail them here. Suffice it to say, the key to legislative interpretation is the purpose of the legislation, determined in the light of the statute’s language and context. Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 516, 525 A.2d 628 (1987). See Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474, 499-500, 554 A.2d 1238 (1989). ‘We may and often must consider other “external manifestations” or “persuasive evidence”.’ Kaczorowski, 309 Md. at 515, 525 A.2d 628. ‘ “[Results that are unreasonable, illogical or inconsistent with common sense should be avoided ... with the real legislative intention prevailing....’” Id. at 516, 525 A.2d 628, quoting Potter v. Bethesda Fire Department, 309 Md. 347, 353, 524 A.2d 61 (1987), quoting State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416, 421-422, 348 A.2d 275 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 942, 96 S.Ct. 1680, 48 L.Ed.2d 185 (1976).”
Id., 329 Md. at 312-13, 619 A.2d at 534.
The question we have before us is what did the legislature intend when it made oral genital contact punishable by up to *438ten years under § 554, but oral genital contact upon a 14 or 15-year-old child by an adult under § 464C punishable by one year. I believe there is only one clear and obvious intent. Generally, oral genital contact is punishable by up to ten years; the same act practiced upon a 14 or 15-year-old by an adult over four years older is punishable by up to one additional year. The two statutes unquestionably were meant to be cumulative.
In cases where this Court has tried to determine whether the legislature intended to authorize cumulative punishment, we have read the statutes “in light of external manifestations of intent or general purpose available through other evidence [and have] considered] ‘the general history and prevailing mood of the legislative body with respect to the type of criminal conduct involved.’ ” Cunningham v. State, 318 Md. 182, 185, 567 A.2d 126, 127 (1989) (quoting Randall Book, 316 Md. at 327, 558 A.2d at 721).
The Maryland General Assembly initially proscribed unnatural or perverted practices by enacting § 554 (then § 439-A) by Chapter 616 of the Acts of 1916 and imposed a maximum imprisonment of ten years upon conviction under the statute. Sixty years later, by Ch. 573 of the Acts of 1976, the legislature “enacted significant and comprehensive legislation which codified Maryland law on rape and other sexual offenses.” J. William Pitcher, Rape and Other Sexual Offense Law Reform in Maryland, 1976-1977, 7 U.Balt.L.Rev. 151 (1977). Section 464C, which defines and proscribes fourth degree sex offenses, was a part of the 1976 enactment. This Court in Schochet v. State, 320 Md. 714, 580 A.2d 176 (1990), had occasion to examine the legislature’s intent regarding the effect that Ch. 573 of the Acts of 1976 was to have upon § 554:
“As originally introduced and as approved by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Senate Bill 358, which became Ch. 573 of the Acts of 1976, would have repealed Art. 27, §§ 553 and 554. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee report on Senate Bill 358 stated:
*439‘Present law proscribes consensual anal (sodomy) or oral (perverted practices) sexual acts. Since these crimes [under §§ 553 and 554], when committed between consenting adults, are very rarely prosecuted because of their clandestine and personal nature, they are not a proper subject of statutory recognition by prohibition.’
Nevertheless, before final enactment, Senate Bill 358 was amended so as not to repeal §§ 553 and 554. Those sections were left intact.”
Id. at 734-35, 580 A.2d at 186.6 The Court in Whack and Frazier examined the legislative history involved in those cases and noted that the General Assembly, upon the enactment of the later statute, amended or superseded some, but not all, of the existing statutes. The Frazier Court recognized that “ ‘[w]here [the legislature] desired no duplication, it specifically amended or superseded those other statutes.’ ” Frazier, 318 Md. at 614, 569 A.2d at 693 (quoting Whack, 288 Md. at 146, 416 A.2d at 270). Thus, in concluding that the legislature did not intend the offenses to be duplicative and did not intend for them to merge, the Court found it was “significant that the Legislature did not amend or supersede” the earlier existing statute. Id. In the instant case, the legislative history likewise discloses the fact that the legislature was aware of the duplicative nature of the 1976 statutory scheme and the already existing §§ 553 and 554. The fact that the legislature specifically declined to repeal or amend § 554 indicates that it did not intend for the 1976 statutory provisions to supplant § 554.
To be sure, this Court has on several occasions merged an offense with a higher penalty into an offense that contained an additional element yet contained a lower penalty. An analysis of each of these cases reveals that generally they are cases where the legislative intent was not clear and it was at least *440conceivable that the additional element might have been considered by the legislature as a mitigating circumstance, or cases where the “lesser” offense was a common law offense with no statutory maximum.
In Flannigan v. State, 232 Md. 13, 191 A.2d 591 (1963), the defendant was convicted of obtaining $57.00 by a bad check with intent to defraud in violation of then Maryland Code (1957, 1962 Cum.Supp.), Art. 27, § 142. He was also convicted, under a separate count, of obtaining money by false pretenses. Both convictions were based on the same acts. The maximum authorized sentence for the § 142 conviction was imprisonment for eighteen months if the amount was under $100 and ten years if the amount was over $100. The authorized sentence for the false pretenses conviction was, under then Art. 27, § 140, imprisonment “for not less than two years nor more than ten years” regardless of the amount. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment which was authorized for the false pretenses conviction, but not by § 142 because the amount was under $100. On appeal, this Court remanded, ordering that the judgment under the false pretenses count be stricken out and that sentence be imposed on the § 142 conviction not to exceed eighteen months’ imprisonment. In holding that the false pretenses conviction merged into the § 142 conviction under the required evidence test, and that the prison sentence could not exceed the eighteen-month maximum authorized by § 142, this Court stated simply:
“In this case, a sentence of two years was imposed. When the value of the property obtained is under the value of $100 in a conviction under § 142, the maximum penalty is a $50 fine and eighteen months’ confinement. We shall, therefore, remand the case for the imposition of a proper sentence under the conviction on the third count.”
Id. at 19,191 A.2d at 594. It is clear that one of the additional elements of the eighteen-month “greater offense” was that the value of the property wrongfully obtained was under $100. Clearly that additional element was a mitigating factor.
*441The majority cited and relied on Johnson v. State, 283 Md. 196, 203-04, 388 A.2d 926, 930 (1978), which held that the included offense merged into the offense having a distinct additional element. In that case, the defendant Johnson, an employee of the State Department of Social Services, devised and carried out a scheme under which he defrauded the State out of a substantial sum of money by preparing and submitting false applications for welfare payments which resulted in the Department’s issuing checks to various fictitious persons. Johnson or an accomplice then cashed the checks. Johnson was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses and of welfare fraud in violation of Art. 27, § 230A. As previously indicated, the maximum penalty for a conviction of obtaining money by false pretenses was ten years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for welfare fraud under § 230A was, and still is, three years’ imprisonment. Johnson was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on the false pretenses convictions and sentenced to concurrent terms on the welfare fraud convictions. The Court of Special Appeals, holding that the welfare fraud convictions merged into the false pretenses convictions, vacated the judgments on the welfare fraud counts. This Court, however, in an opinion by Judge Marvin Smith, held that, under the required evidence test, false pretenses was an included offense within welfare fraud, that the convictions for false pretenses merged into the convictions for welfare fraud, and that “[t]he sentence must be under § 230A, which provides the lesser penalty. Thus, the Court of Special Appeals erred.” Johnson, 283 Md. at 204, 388 A.2d at 930. The legislative intent with regard to cumulative sentences was unclear and it was at least conceivable that the legislature felt it was a less serious offense to defraud the State Department of Social Services than to defraud a private citizen or corporate entity.
Another ease where an offense with a higher penalty merged into an offense with a lower penalty is Nightingale v. State, 312 Md. 699, 542 A.2d 373 (1988), which held that, where a sexual offense is a required element of child abuse, the conviction for the sexual offense must merge into the convic*442tion for child abuse even if the sexual offense carried a higher penalty than child abuse. Id. at 708, 542 A.2d at 377. Although illogical, it was at least possible that the legislature intended that a sexual offense by a child’s parent, custodian, or supervisor was theoretically, slightly less traumatic or severe than the same sexual offense committed on the child by a stranger. Therefore, the additional element in the child abuse statute was at least conceivably a mitigating element. The legislature quickly made it clear that their intent was that these offenses could be punished cumulatively and amended the child abuse statute to provide that “[t]he sentence imposed under this section may be imposed separate from and consecutive to or concurrent with a sentence for any offense based upon the act or acts establishing the abuse.” Md.Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol., 1991 Cum.Supp.), Art. 27, § 35A(b)(3). See Ch. 604 of the Acts of 1990 (noting House Bill 815’s “purpose of reversing the holding[ ] of the Maryland Court of Appeals in [Nightingale]”).
In Slye v. State, 42 Md.App. 520, 524-27, 401 A.2d 195, 198-200 (1979), the Court of Special Appeals held that, under the required evidence test, a conviction for larceny, for which the maximum prison sentence was 15 years, merged into a conviction for shoplifting, for which the maximum prison sentence was three years. Again, although the court’s analysis was based only on the elements of the offense, it is at least conceivable that the legislature believed that stealing goods from open display counters in mercantile establishments was giving into temptation and thus less severe than other forms of larceny.
In many of the above cited cases, there was dicta about the offenses with lesser elements merging into offenses with greater elements regardless of the penalty, but these statements were only dicta. It is important to keep in mind the admonition in Dixon where, writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia emphasized the importance in this area of “ ‘the need to distinguish an opinion’s holding from its dicta.’ ” Dixon, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2861, 125 L.Ed.2d at 574 (quoting U.S. Nat. Bank of Or. v. Independent Ins. Agents, *443508 U.S. —, — n. 11, 113 S.Ct. 2173, 2187 n. 11, 124 L.Ed.2d 402, 423 n. 11 (1993)). In our prior merger cases, a careful analysis of the holdings reveals that the legislative intent was not clear, and it was at least conceivable that the legislature intended that there be a merger of the offense with the higher penalty into the offense with the lower penalty. In none of our prior cases would merger have been as unreasonable and illogical as it would be in the instant case.
Several of our cases have also held that common law offenses with no maximum punishment “merge into,” and are limited by, the punishment for the “greater” statutory offense with the added element. For example, in Simms v. State, 288 Md. 712, 421 A.2d 957 (1980), the defendants were charged, inter alia, with assault with intent to rob in violation of Art. 27, § 12, and with common law assault. The maximum sentence for assault with intent to rob is ten years’ imprisonment. The only limitation upon the number of years’ imprisonment to which a defendant may be sentenced for common law assault, as well as common law battery, is the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Sentences of twenty years’ imprisonment for common law assault have been upheld by this Court. See Roberts v. Warden, 242 Md. 459, 219 A.2d 254, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 876, 87 S.Ct. 156, 17 L.Ed.2d 104 (1966); Adair v. State, 231 Md. 255, 189 A.2d 618 (1963). Assault with intent to rob and common law assault are deemed to be the same offense under the required evidence test. Although common law assault carries the greater maximum penalty, it is the included offense, and assault with intent to rob is the offense with the distinct element, namely an intent to rob. This Court in Simms ordered that the sentences for common law assault be vacated and that the cases be remanded for the imposition of a new sentence, which could not exceed the maximum for assault with intent to rob, i.e., ten years’ imprisonment. Simms, 288 Md. at 727, 421 A.2d at 965.
These common law merger cases are inapposite to the instant case because the common law set no punishment at all for the “lesser” offense, only a constitutional limitation of cruel or unusual punishment. The only maximum penalty in these *444common law merger cases was the penalty for the greater offense. The legislature could not have intended that the greater offense with a statutory maximum be punished cumulatively to an offense that had no maximum penalty. The most likely legislative intent was merger, not cumulative punishment, and the maximum penalty for the greater offense should control. Also, unless the statutory maximum of the “greater” offense was intended to control over the unlimited common law penalty of the “lesser” offense, there was no reason to enact the statute creating the “greater” offense.
The majority’s merger analysis implies that the legislature intended to treat the age requirements of § 464C, (i.e., that the victim be 14 or 15 and the perpetrator more than 4 years older), as a mitigating factor requiring a reduction of the maximum penalty under § 554 to the maximum allowable under § 464C. The majority’s conclusion that the additional element of § 464C made it the greater offense is based upon principles that the Maryland courts have derived from Block-burger in Simms, 288 Md. at 726, 421 A.2d at 965; Johnson v. State, 283 Md. at 203-04, 388 A.2d at 930; and Slye, 42 Md.App. at 525-26, 401 A.2d at 199-200. After citing the Blockburger test as “the only feasible test for determining what is a ‘greater’ ” offense, the Court in Simms acknowledged:
“While usually the ‘greater offense’ under this test will represent the more heinous or aggravated crime, this is not always true. In some situations when the Legislature creates a greater offense by adding an element to a basic crime such as larceny or false pretenses, the additional element may have been viewed as a mitigating rather than an aggravating factor, and for this reason a lesser maximum penalty is provided for the particular greater offense. This is illustrated by the offenses involved in Johnson v. State, supra, 283 Md. at 203-204[, 388 A.2d at 929-930], and Slye v. State, supra.”
Simms, 288 Md. at 726, 421 A.2d at 965. It is simply not conceivable that the legislature intended the youthful age of the victim to be either a mitigating factor or a reason to *445reduce the punishment. After noting that legislative intent dictates whether a defendant can be punished twice when the conduct violates two statutes each of which proscribe the conduct, Chief Justice Warren aptly observed that “[ojften the inquiry [into legislative intent] produces few if any enlightening results. Normally these are not problems that receive explicit legislative consideration. But this fact should not lead the judiciary, charged with the obligation of construing these statutes, to settle such questions by the easy application of stereotyped formulae.... All relevant criteria must be considered and the most useful aid will often be common sense.” Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 394, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 1285, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405, 1411 (1958) (Warren, C.J., dissenting). See also Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340-41, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143-4, 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282-83 (1981) (noting that silence in the legislative history as to whether the legislature intended to authorize multiple punishment is not to be read as an ambiguity). Logically, the legislature sought to provide additional protection for adolescents and consequently intended the punishment under § 464C to be cumulative to the punishment existing under § 554.
In Newton, this Court made an observation that is applicable to the instant case when it noted that,
“the legislature may indicate an express intent to punish certain ■ conduct more severely if particular aggravating circumstances are present by imposing punishment under two separate statutory offenses which otherwise would be deemed the same under the required evidence test.” (Emphasis added).
Newton, 280 Md. at 274 n. 4, 373 A.2d at 269 n. 4. The youthful age of the “victim” is the “particular aggravating circumstance” which justifies “imposing punishment under two separate statutory offenses which otherwise would be deemed the same under the required evidence test....” Whack, 288 Md. at 149, 416 A.2d at 271 (quoting Newton, 280 Md. at 274 n. 4, 373 A.2d at 269 n. 4).
*446Finally, in attempting to determine what the legislature intended as the unit of prosecution under a single statute, the Court in Randall Book “look[ed] to the penalty provided for each offense” and found that “[i]f the maximum penalty permitted is quite substantial, that fact may militate against an intent to create multiple units of prosecution.” 316 Md. at 327, 558 A.2d at 721. Looking at the relatively insubstantial one-year maximum prescribed for violation of § 464C, it is clear that the legislature did not intend for that penalty to supersede a greater ten-year penalty based upon the same conduct. The General Assembly intentionally declined to repeal § 554 at the time it enacted § 464C. “It is presumed that the General Assembly acted with full knowledge of prior legislation and intended statutes that affect the same subject matter to blend into a consistent and harmonious body of law.” State v. Bricker, 321 Md. 86, 93, 581 A.2d 9, 12 (1990). I believe that both common sense and the “external manifestations” of the General Assembly indicate that the legislature intended for behavior that violated both § 554 and § 464C to be. separately and cumulatively punished. The legislature could not have intended that an unnatural or perverted sex practice carry a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment if committed on adults, but only one year if committed on 14 or 15-year-olds. Likewise, the legislature could not have intended that a valid ten-year maximum sentence be reduced to a one-year maximum because the defendant is charged with and convicted of both offenses.
The unsoundness of the majority’s holding is also illustrated by its inference that, if the State believed that the one-year maximum prison sentence under § 464C was inadequate, it had a remedy — it could avoid merger by prosecuting only under § 554. According to the majority, the only way the State would have been able to secure the ten-year maximum sentence for Lancaster’s conviction under § 554 for unnatural or perverted sex practices would have been to not also prosecute and convict Lancaster for the § 464C fourth degree sex offense. Thus, in order to avoid a merger, the State would have to forego its right to prosecute under § 464C, and *447thereby forego having Lancaster’s criminal conviction record reflect that his crime was perpetuated on a 14 or 15-year-old child.
The majority’s decision in the instant case is that, when a defendant is prosecuted for and convicted of all the statutory crimes he or she committed, an unnatural or perverted sex practice by an adult on an adult carries up to ten years’ imprisonment, but if committed by an adult on a 14 or 15-year-old child, there is merger of offenses and the maximum punishment for the act will be reduced to one year. Construing the statutes as the majority does could conceivably encourage the sexual exploitation of 14 or 15-year-old children. The majority’s decision is at best illogical, but it is inexcusable to blame the legislature and suggest that such a result is what the legislature intended when they enacted § 554 and § 464C.
I respectfully dissent.
. All references are to Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.), Article 27 unless otherwise indicated.
. The issue in the State’s petition for certiorari and the issue before this Court is "[w]hether the Court of Special Appeals erred in holding that [Lancaster’s] conviction for perverted practice under [Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.)], Article 27, § 554 must be vacated on the basis of merger under the required evidence test in light of [Lancaster’s] conviction for fourth degree sexual offense under Article 27, § 464C.” The State’s analysis as to why there should be no merger and why Lancaster’s conviction under § 554 should not be vacated differ slightly from the analysis set forth in this opinion. Where this Court agrees with the State’s contention and affirms the trial judge, we should not be limited solely to the reasons offered by the State. Cf. Robeson v. State, 285 Md. 498, 501-04, 403 A.2d 1221, 1223-24 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1021, 100 S.Ct. 680, 62 L.Ed.2d 654 (1980).
. Section 464C provides in pertinent part as follows:
"§ 464C. Fourth degree sexual offense.
*430(a) What constitutes. — A person is guilty of a sexual offense in the fourth degree if the person engages:
(2) In a sexual act with another person who is 14 or 15 years of age and the person performing the sexual act is four or more years older than the other person;
ífc tfc ❖ ❖ * •
(b) Penalty. — Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction is subject to imprisonment for a period of not more than one year, or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both fine and imprisonment.”
Art. 27, § 461, provides in pertinent part as follows:
"§ 461. Definitions.
(a) In general. — In this subheading, the following words have the meanings indicated.
sfc sj* ❖ tfc s¡s
(e) Sexual act. — 'Sexual act’ means cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse, but does not include vaginal intercourse. Emission of semen is not required. Penetration, however slight, is evidence of anal intercourse. Sexual act also means the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body if the penetration can be reasonably construed as being for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification or for abuse of either party and if the penetration is not for accepted medical purposes.”
. Section 554 provides in pertinent part as follows:
Ҥ 554. Unnatural or perverted sexual practices.
Every person who is convicted of taking into his or her mouth the sexual organ of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of placing his or her sexual organ in the mouth of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of committing any other unnatural or perverted sexual practice with any other person or animal, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or be imprisoned in jail or in the house of correction or in the penitentiary for a period not exceeding ten years, or shall be both fined and imprisoned within the limits above prescribed in the discretion of the court.”
. It is possible that fellatio, i.e., oral genital contact not involving taking into one’s mouth the sexual organ of another, could be an unnatural or perverted sex practice under § 554’s catch-all phrase covering "any other unnatural or perverted sex practice.” There is at least some dicta to that effect in a few cases. See Schochet v. State, 320 Md. 714, 718, 732, 580 A.2d 176, 178, 185 (1990) (referring to the defendant being charged with "fellatio, in violation of Art. 27, § 554,” and referring to the fact that "cases in this Court have upheld convictions under § 554 based on engaging or attempting to engage in fellatio”); Neville v. State, 290 Md. 364, 377, 380-81, 430 A.2d 570, 576-77, 578 (1981) (equating the § 554 charge there involved with "fellatio” and "oral sodomy”). If, however, fellatio is simply one of the generic “other unnatural or perverted sex practice[s]” prohibited by § 554, then this offense differs from, and contains elements not included in, the prohibited "sexual act[s]” of the fourth degree sex offense statute, § 464C. A statute punishing fellatio is obviously not the same offense as a statute punishing any unnatural or perverted sex practice.
. The Court in Schochet v. State, 320 Md. 714, 580 A.2d 176 (1990), did not reach the constitutionality of the statute and, as the defendant in the instant case did not raise the issue at trial, it is not properly before the Court. Maryland Rule 8-131(a).