In Nicolas v. State, 426 Md. 385, 44 A.3d 396 (2012), the Court considered ambiguities in convictions for resisting arrest and assault, stemming from an altercation involving multiple police officers. See id. at 410-12. After reviewing the trial transcript, the jury instructions and the verdict sheet, the Court of Appeals held "that the record is ambiguous as to the factual bases for which the jury found Petitioner guilty of second degree assault of" two different officers who arrested him, because "a reasonable jury could have found that the assaults were based on acts that preceded the officers' attempt to arrest Petitioner, or that the assaults were an integral part of the resisting arrest." Id. at 412. Given that ambiguity, "the trial judge should have merged the assault convictions into the conviction for resisting arrest." Id. In Nicolas v. State, police officers were questioning Nicolas outside of his house when he decided to end the encounter by pushing one officer, hitting another in the face, and retreating into his home. The officers decided to arrest him, and pursued him into the house; during the course of handcuffing Nicolas and escorting him outside, Nicolas continued to push, struggle with, and hit the police officers. Nicolas was charged with and convicted of second-degree assault on a police officer and resisting arrest, and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari on the question of whether second-degree assault and resisting arrest merge for sentencing purposes when the record is ambiguous regarding whether the jury convicted a defendant of assault based upon conduct distinct from that upon which the jury found the defendant guilty of resisting arrest. Id. Judge Clayton Greene, writing for the Court, answered the question in the affirmative. In so doing, Judge Greene held that all the elements of assault in the second degree are included within the offense of resisting arrest, noting with respect to the particular conduct at issue in both crimes as follows: "The 'force' that is required to find a defendant guilty of resisting arrest is the same as the 'offensive physical contact' that is required to find a defendant guilty of the battery variety of second degree assault. . . . The State makes the argument that force applied by a defendant to resist arrest does not have to take the form of force against a person, i.e., a law enforcement officer; thus, the offenses need not merge. While we agree with the State's contention that the force element of resisting arrest need not always constitute second degree assault against a law enforcement officer, we hold that when the force used by a defendant to resist arrest is the same as the offensive physical contact with a law enforcement officer attempting to effectuate that arrest, the convictions merge under the required evidence test." Id. The Court held that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption of regularity as to whether or not the trial court received a certain note from the jury during deliberations. Although the note was part of the record, the note "was never mentioned in the trial transcript, it was never marked as an exhibit, it was never responded to by the trial court, and it contained no date or time-stamp." Id. The Court stated: There is a presumption of regularity which normally attaches to trial court proceedings, although its applicability may sometimes depend upon the nature of the issue before the reviewing court. Harris v. State, 406 Md. 115, 122, 956 A.2d 204, 208 (2008) . To overcome the presumption of regularity or correctness, the defendant has the burden of producing a sufficient factual record for the appellate court to determine whether error was committed. Id.