Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): appealable. See Hudson v. Hous. Auth., 402 Md. 18, 25-26, 935 A.2d 395 (2007). Even if the Order did not qualify as a final order, it would qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order for both the State and Gaumer. By permitting WBAL to copy portions of the audiotape and the DVD, the court conclusively determined the disputed and important issue presented by the Motion for Access. That determination resolved an issue that was completely separate from the merits of the underlying criminal action, i.e., whether Gaumer was guilty of the crime charged and, if so, his punishment. The Order was effectively unreviewable in an appeal from the final judgment in Gaumer’s criminal case. See Mann v. State’s Attorney for Montgomery County, 298 Md. 160, 164-65, 468 A.2d 124 (1983) (<HOLDING>). As WBAL notes, “since the [the Order] was 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an order refusing to enforce a settlement agreement is not immediately appealable because it does not prevent a judgment from being rendered in the action and appellant can seek review of the current order in any appeal from final judgment (B) holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal (C) holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence (D) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order (E) holding that an order granting the media the right to interview a defendant in a capital murder case was unreviewable upon appeal in the criminal trial and therefore immediately appealable as a collateral order because the review on appeal would have been too late to cure any damage to the defendant from what was said in the interview
Output (English): holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence