Pearce v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 434-436,s. 434-436 |
| Citation | 261 A.2d 39,8 Md.App. 477 |
| Parties | Charlie Blake PEARCE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
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.
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. v. State's Attorney, 251 Md. 503, 248 A.2d 346, and State v. Mather, 7 Md.App. 549, 256 A.2d 532.
Appeals dismissed; costs to be paid by appellant; the mandate of this court to issue forthwith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rush
...interlocutory appeal not allowed by Raimondi v. State, 8 Md.App. 468, 261 A.2d 40, cert. denied 256 Md. 747 (1970), and Pearce v. State, 8 Md.App. 477, 261 A.2d 39 (1970), and not expressly permitted by § 12-302 of the Courts Article and, thus, subject to dismissal pursuant to Md. Rule 8-60......
-
State v. Lohss
...8 Md.App. 487, 261 A.2d 44; Davis v. State, 8 Md.App. 480, 261 A.2d 37; Dodson v. State, 8 Md.App. 478, 261 A.2d 38; Pearce v. State, 8 Md.App. 477, 261 A.2d 39. Compare Westmoreland v. State, 8 Md.App. 482, 261 A.2d 35; Brown v. State, 2 Md.App. 388, 234 A.2d 788. The grant of a motion to ......
-
Neal v. State
...seized in contravention of the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution, Harris v. State, 6 Md.App. 7, 249 A.2d 723 Pearce v. State, 8 Md.App. 477, 261 A.2d 39 . . . (1970); from an order overruling the defendant's constitutionally grounded exceptions to the State's answer to his motion......
-
Lohss v. State
...549, 552-553, 256 A.2d 532 (1969); State v. Campbell and Reeves, 7 Md.App. 538, 542, 256 A.2d 537 (1969); see Pearce v. State, 8 Md.App. 477, 478, 261 A.2d 39 (1970); and Harris v. State, 6 Md.App. 7, 19, 249 A.2d 723 (1969), cert. denied, 255 Md. 741 (1969). In State v. Barshack, 197 Md. 5......