State v. McKinley

424 N.W.2d 586, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 565, 1988 WL 61165
Court of Appeals of Minnesota·Decided June 21, 1988·No. C3-88-1077·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SPECIAL TERM OPINION

WOZNIAK, Chief Judge

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

State v. McKinley, 424 N.W.2d 586, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 565, 1988 WL 61165 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

424 N.W.2d 586 (State v. McKinley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Johnson
447 N.W.2d 605 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1989)
State v. Wittenberg
441 N.W.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1989)