State v. McKinley

Minnesota Court of Appeals
State v. McKinley, 424 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 565; 1988 WL 61165
Wozniak, Parker, Forsberg

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 2 citing opinions

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

State v. McKinley

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.

Reference

Full Case Name
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jack Bogardus McKINLEY, Appellant
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published