Legal Opinion

State v. McKinley

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided June 21, 1988No. C3-88-1077PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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 following the conclusion of the appeal, or to commit a…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. WittenbergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  2. State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API