upholding the Court of Special Appeals’ dismissal of the defendant’s immediate appeal from an adverse ruling brought under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and in doing so, rejecting the defendant’s argument that, “[b]y analogy to the double jeopardy cases,” the Interstate Agreement “prescribes the remedy of dismissal for violations of the single transfer rule,” giving him “a right not to stand trial”
How later courts described this case
- upholding the Court of Special Appeals’ dismissal of the defendant’s immediate appeal from an adverse ruling brought under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and in doing so, rejecting the defendant’s argument that, “[b]y analogy to the double jeopardy cases,” the Interstate Agreement “prescribes the remedy of dismissal for violations of the single transfer rule,” giving him “a right not to stand trial”
- declining to consider whether the challenged order satisfied the first three requirements of the collateral order doctrine because the order failed the fourth requirement
- “This Court has ... recognized that, under the collateral order doctrine, a defendant may take an immediate appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy.”
- “Ordinarily a circuit court judgment is final only if it terminates the action in that court.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ELDRIDGE, Judge,
concurring:
I concur with the result and with all of the Court’s opinion except footnote 9. In my view, the approach toward the collateral order doctrine taken in the present case cannot be reconciled with the approach taken by the Court in State v. Hogg, 311 Md. 446 , 535 A.2d 923 (1988). Hogg should be overruled.