State v. Hubbard, 290 S.E.2d 817 (S.C. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Hubbard, 290 S.E.2d 817 (S.C. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Ryan L. Manigo (2) (scctapp, 2026-06-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ryan L. Manigo (2) (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
"An appeal in a criminal case must attend the final judgment rendered on the indictment." State v. Hubbard, 277 S.C. 568, 569 , 290 S.E.2d 817, 817 (1982); see also State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 426, 426 , 346 S.E.2d 705, 705 (1986) ("In South Carolina, a criminal defendant may not appeal until sentence has been imposed.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Isaac
S.C. · 2013 · confidence medium
See In re Lorenzo B., 307 S.C. 439, 439 , 415 S.E.2d 795 (1992) (an order adjudicating a juvenile delinquent is not appealable until imposition of final judgment at the dispositional hearing); Parsons v. State, 289 S.C. 542, 542 , 347 S.E.2d 504, 504 (1986) (denial of bail pending trial is not immediately appealable); Miller, 289 S.C. at 427 , 346 S.E.2d at 706 (denial of a claim of double jeopardy is not immediately appealable); State v. Washington, 285 S.C. 457 , 458, 330 S.E.2d 289, 289 (1985) (a conviction at a trial in absentia prior to imposition of sentence is not immediately appealable…
discussed Cited "see" State v. Reece (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hubbard, 277 S.C. 568, 569 , 290 S.E.2d 817, 817 (1982) (dismissing an appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order denying a motion to suppress, noting "[a]n appeal in a criminal case must attend the final judgment rendered on the indictment"); see also State v. Dingle, 279 S.C. 278, 282 , 306 S.E.2d 223, 225 (1983) (holding because the order "[wa]s not appealable until final judgment [wa]s rendered, the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case"), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Looper (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hubbard, 277 S.C. 568, 569 , 290 S.E.2d 817, 817 (1982) (finding the appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence is interlocutory); see also State v. Isaac, 405 S.C. 177, 184 , 747 S.E.2d 677, 680 (2013) (analogizing the denial of a request for immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act to the denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal case on the ground of double jeopardy and finding it not immediately appealable).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Ronald J. HUBBARD, David C. Lerette, Bobby Newman, Donna Pardew, and James E. Starnes, Appellants
21695.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Apr 14, 1982.
290 S.E.2d 817
1982 S.C. LEXIS 320
David A. Fedor, Columbia, for appellants., Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Lindy P. Funkhouser and Sol. James G. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam:

The appellants are charged with gambling and operating a gambling house. Before the jury was sworn, the appellants moved to suppress evidence seized in a search of the premises where they were arrested. This appeal is from the denial of that motion. We dismiss the appeal.

The appellants have not yet gone to trial. An appeal in a criminal case must attend the final judgment rendered on the indictment. State v. McMillan, 189 S. C. 444, 1 S. E. (2d) 626 (1939). No final judgment has occurred in this case and the order appealed from is interlocutory. State v. Thomas, 275 S. C. 274, 269 S. E. (2d) 768 (1980).

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case for trial.