State of Minnesota v. Airizes Samuel Miller

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Airizes Samuel Miller,

Appellant.

SPECIAL
TERM
ORDER1
#A25-2162
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Rasmusson,
Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
Appellant Airizes Samuel Miller filed a motion for release pending appeal of his
conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Respondent State of Minnesota filed
a response in opposition to Miller’s motion.
A jury found Miller guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on
allegations that he repeatedly sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s minor child. During trial,
there were repeated concerns with Miller contacting witnesses for the state, which

1 Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order is nonprecedential, except
as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
2

culminated in the district court threatening to hold Miller in contempt if he did so again
and warning him that he could be prosecuted criminally for witness tampering. At the
conclusion of trial, counsel for Miller requested that he remain on release pending
sentencing. In denying this request, the district court stated:
Given the severity of this offense, given the type of offense that
it is as it is related to the safety of minor children and the
community, and also the ongoing open other matters that Mr.
Miller has, the Court is concerned for safety. The Court is
concerned about his appearance— whether or not he will
appear for sentencing. And at this point, I am entering the
conviction and I am holding him without bail.

At sentencing, the district court denied Miller’s motion for a downward
dispositional departure, expressing its concerns that Miller has “shown no remorse or
accountability or insight at all into [his] behavior and conduct.” The district court imposed
an executed sentence of 180 months in prison. After filing a notice of appeal with this
court, Miller filed a motion for release pending appeal with the district court. The
following day, the district court filed an order denying Miller’s motion without discussion
or analysis. Miller now asks this court to grant his release pending appeal.
A criminal defendant’s appeal “does not stay execution of the judgment or sentence
unless a district court judge or a judge of the appellate court grants a stay.” Minn. R. Crim.
P. 28.02, subd. 6. A defendant is not entitled to release pending appeal from a judgment
of conviction unless the defendant establishes that: “(a) the appeal is not frivolous or taken
for delay” and that “(b) no substantial risk exists that the defendant: (i) will fail to appear
to answer the judgment following the conclusion of the appellate proceedings; (ii) is likely
3

to commit a serious crime, intimidate witnesses, or otherwise interfere with the
administration of justice.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 7(2).
A defendant seeking release pending appeal must first apply to the district court.
Id., subd. 7(3). “If the defendant appeals and has previously applied to the district court
for release pending appeal, the defendant may file a motion for release, or for modification
of the conditions of release, to the applicable appellate court or to a judge or justice of that
court.” Id. This court reviews de novo the grounds asserted for a release pending appeal.
State v. Johnson, 447 N.W.2d 605, 606 (Minn. App. 1989). But this court also recognizes
that the district court “is in a far better position than an appellate court to determine whether
a defendant” has met the burden of establishing the factors governing release. State v.
McKinley, 424 N.W.2d 586, 586-87 (Minn. App. 1988).
In his motion to this court, Miller argues that he has satisfied all conditions
necessary for this court to grant his release pending resolution of this appeal. First, he
asserts that his principal brief in this matter, which raises three colorable issues challenging
the judgment of conviction, demonstrates that this appeal is not frivolous or taken for delay.
Second, he argues that he has not previously failed to appear in this matter and measures
such as electronic home monitoring could be employed to ensure his reappearance. And
third, he argues that there is no substantial risk that he will commit a serious crime,
intimidate witnesses, otherwise interfere with the administration of justice while released
because the current offense is his only “serious crime” and appropriate conditions of release
would serve to mitigate the risk of his involvement in any such behavior.
4
Here, although the district court did not provide any additional discussion or
reasoning in support of its order denying Miller’s release pending appeal, its conclusion is
more than amply supported by its previous statements in denying his request for
presentencing release, its concerns regarding Miller’s potential witness tampering during
trial, its concerns with his failure to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severity
of the underlying offense itself. Based upon our de novo review of the record, and in
consideration of the McKinley court’s observation that district courts are best situated to
determine whether a defendant has met his burdens under rule 28.02, subdivision 7(2), we
conclude Miller has not adequately demonstrated that he does not pose a substantial risk
of failing to appear to answer the judgment at the conclusion of this appeal, committing an
additional serious offense, intimidating witnesses, or otherwise interfering with the
administration of justice while on release.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Appellant’s motion for release pending appeal is
denied.
Dated: July 21, 2026
BY THE COURT
_________________________________
Michelle A. Larkin
Presiding Judge
_________________________________
Michelle A. Larkin