In Re Appeal No. 961

Orth, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is dismissed. It founders in the wake of Matter of Trader, 272 Md. 364 . The teaching of that decision is that the provision of Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (Courts Art.) § 3-817, declaring that an order of a juvenile court waiving its jurisdiction is interlocutory, is presently in full force and effect, contrary to the holding of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in Matter of Trader, 20 Md. App. 1 , that the provision was unconstitutional and void.

An interlocutory order is ordinarily not immediately appealable, the general rule being that an appeal lies only from a final order. Courts Art. § 12-301. See Courts Art. § 12-302. The orders from which the appeal here is taken waived the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City sitting as a juvenile court.

These are, therefore, interlocutory, and the appeal is not allowed by law. We are obliged to dismiss the appeal and do so on our own motion. Maryland Rules 1035 b (1) and 1035 a 2. I On 2 October 1973 the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City filed five petitions in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, sitting as a juvenile court, against a male child, born 31 August 1955, alleging that the child was delinquent for reason that he had committed the crimes of forgery and uttering, false pretenses, robbery, assault, and petit larceny. 1 The State’s Attorney requested a waiver of the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Upon hearing on 30 October 1973, the Juvenile Master recommended that jurisdiction be waived. The child filed exceptions. Upon ¹¹ hearing on 17 December 1973 before the judge presiding in the juvenile court, jurisdiction under each petition was waived. An appeal from the orders of waiver was noted to this Court on 15 January 1974.

The dismissal of the appeal vests jurisdiction over the child in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. Aye v. State, 17 Md. App. 32 . He may be tried in that court under its regular procedures on charges properly filed. Courts Art. § 3-816 (e).

II The Court of Appeals in its Trader opinion went no further into the question of the appealability of orders waiving juvenile jurisdiction than the determination that as interlocutory orders they were not immediately appealable. We believe it advisable to pursue the matter for the guidance of the lower courts. We expressed the thought in our opinion in Trader that the designation as interlocutory of an order waiving juvenile jurisdiction put in limbo whether it was appealable at all, and if so, how and when. 20 Md. App. at 5 . We now conclude that it is subject to appellate review, and give our opinion as to how and when this may be accomplished.

In Aye v. State, supra, decided during the time when an order waiving juvenile jurisdiction was a final order by legislative fiat, 2 we set out the jurisdiction of the various courts involved upon a waiver of juvenile jurisdiction and discussed the procedures to be followed when the waiver was challenged on direct appeal therefrom and when it was not so challenged. We think that the jurisdiction of the various ¹² courts involved and the procedures to be followed are the same with the waiver order being interlocutory as they were when the waiver order was final and unchallenged on direct appeal therefrom. That is, an order of waiver valid on its face, now, as then, terminates the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and vests jurisdiction in the court having jurisdiction over the criminal offense with which the child is charged. The waiver shall be noted on the docket of the juvenile court and the clerk shall deliver a certificate of the waiver to the proper prosecuting authority.

Rule 911 c. The State’s Attorney shall immediately procure an indictment or, where permitted, shall prepare and file an information against the accused.