Pearce v. State

• Decision Date: 23 January 1970
• Docket Number: Nos. 434-436,s. 434-436
• Citation: Pearce v. State, 261 A.2d 39, 8 Md.App. 477 (Md. App. 1970)
• Parties: Charlie Blake PEARCE v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 477

8 Md.App. 477

261 A.2d 39

Charlie Blake PEARCE v. STATE of Maryland.

Nos. 434-436.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 23, 1970.

Robert C. Heeney, Rockville, for appellant.

Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William A. Linthicum, State's Atty. for Montgomery County, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

From the denial of his pretrial motion in each case 'To Dismiss Search Warrant and Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized Thereunder,' Pearce immediately appealed to this court. His motion was based on the proposition that the search warrant was issued without probable cause and hence in contravention of the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution. He contends that the ruling of the lower court denied him an absolute constitutional right and, consequently, is immediately reviewable on appeal. The State moved to dismiss the appeals on the ground that the order appealed from is an interlocutory one, and, not constituting a final judgment, is not immediately reviewable on appeal. We flatly held in Harris v. State, 6 Md.App. 7, 249 A.2d 723, that denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence filed under Maryland Rule 729 was an interlocutory ruling from which an immediate appeal would not lie. Our reasons for so concluding have been set out in detail in Raimondi v. State, Md.App., 261 A.2d 40 (filed January 23, 1970). See also Mace Produce Co....