State v. McKinley
This text of 424 N.W.2d 586 (State v. McKinley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
SPECIAL TERM OPINION
FACTS
Appellant McKinley was found guilty by a jury of receiving and concealing stolen property. He has filed a notice of appeal and a motion for release pending appeal.
DECISION
A motion for release pending appeal must first be presented to the trial court. Minn.R.Crim.P. 28.02, subd. 7(3). McKinley’s motion does not show he has made a motion for release in the trial court.
The trial court is in a far better position than an appellate court to determine whether a defendant is a risk to fail to appear *587 following the conclusion of the appeal, or to commit a serious crime, intimidate witnesses or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice if released pending appeal. Minn.R.Crim.P. 28.02, subd. 7(2). McKinley’s motion addresses only in con-clusory fashion the factors in Rule 28.02, subd. 7(2) governing release pending appeal. Such a motion is entitled only to the most summary consideration.
Motion for release pending appeal denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
424 N.W.2d 586, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 565, 1988 WL 61165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mckinley-minnctapp-1988.