Case Results

State v. J.T.

March, 2018
Charges: 4th Degree DWI - Misdemeanor

Plea to an amended count of Reckless Driving. This is a remarkable result considering the client blew a .12 and was involved in a serious single-car accident that left the car resting on its side. Mr. Gempeler leveraged two legal issues relating to the legality of the PBT and probable cause for the arrest into this terrific result. The sentence did not include any jail or community work service, and the fine was minimal. Another great result even though bad facts made it seem unlikely to achieve such a result.

Types of Charge(s): DWI Case Results

State v. A.W.

February, 2018
Charges: Felony Failure to Register as a Sex Offender

No Jail, waiver of mandatory prison term. As in so many situations in Minnesota, a conviction for the offense of failing to register can implicate a mandatory minimum prison sentence, but aggressive and creative lawyering can avoid this punishing outcome. This client worked his ass off to correct the mistake he'd made in neglecting to stay in contact with local law enforcement, and was credited for the time he'd already spent in custody--2 nights--rather than head off to Minnesota Correctional Facility--St. Cloud for eight months or longer. If you face a mando sentence, as they are called, contact North Star without delay. You need seasoned professionals, and the sooner you retain them, the better your outlook will be and will STAY.

Types of Charge(s): Felonies, Sex Crimes

State v. J.S.

February, 2018
Charges: Felony drug offenses

Drug Diversion. This client had been advised he did not qualify for a sentence pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 152.18 due to the sale components in his narcotics arrest; within three months, with hard work and dutiful attendance to Mr. Adkins' advice, diversion was achieved, and the matter is in line to be fully expunged upon successful completion of an eminently achievable program. Client was overjoyed.

Types of Charge(s): Drug Crime Case Results

State v. J.R.

February, 2018
Charges: 3rd Degree Burglary - Felony

Sentence as a Gross Misdemeanor, no jail. To say this client is pleased with his outcome is to say giraffes are tall. Client sought to play a prank on his former employer, and faced a nasty turpitude (lying/cheating/stealing) felony with permanent record consequences for his trouble. After lengthy and creative negotiations with a talented prosecutor, the matter was submitted to a judge with a motion for a downward (durational) departure. These are difficult to obtain, requiring particularized circumstances argued carefully and well, and Mr. Adkins prevailed upon the Court to protect his client's record and minimize his exposure. This result also meant the State could no longer seek to forfeit the client's valuable work vehicle, meaning a win, all around. Remarkable results.

State v. M.W.

February, 2018
Charges: False Information to Police - Misdemeanor

Stay of adjudication. The City initially wanted a plea to the sole count of false info to police. This is common for this type of charge. But, the attorneys at North Star leveraged their strong relationship with the prosecuting attorneys and a sound negotiation strategy to land this needful result for a teacher. As a result of this outcome, the client will maintain a clear record.

Types of Charge(s): Misdemeanor

State v. A.S.

February, 2018
Charges: Indecent Exposure and Disorderly Conduct - Misdemeanors

Stay of Adjudication to the Disorderly Conduct charge and the Indecent Exposure charge was dismissed. For a client employed in the financial world that requires state licensures, avoiding any plea or record relating to the indecent exposure was critical. The State's initial offer was a plea. Heeding Mr. Gempeler's suggestion, the client prepared two letters of apology that proved crucial in negotiating such a terrific outcome for a deserving client. It is this type of creativity in negotiations that allows the North Star team to consistently get the right results for our clients.

Types of Charge(s): Misdemeanor, Sex Crimes

State v. A.L.

February, 2018
Charges: Identity Theft and Financial Card Fraud - Felonies

Stay of Imposition to the identity theft charge. Using identity and credit cards belonging to multiple people, our client purchased items from Target and committed other identity theft, totaling in excess of $25,000 - and perhaps even closing in on $100K depending on how the accounting occurred. Nonetheless, after losing a close battle on whether the search of a vehicle was constitutional, Mr. Gempeler negotiated an outcome in which the client is only probation for three years, has no further jail to serve, no fine, and restitution is capped at $6,000 - $1K per identifiable victim as required under the statute - in a joint and several capacity with a co-defendant. Essentially, the client has to just pay restitution and not commit any same or similar offenses and this serious felony case will be a misdemeanor conviction on his record.

K.M. v. C.S.

February, 2018
Charges: Harassment Restraining Order - Sought against client

Opposing party obtained an ex party harassment restraining order against our client - meaning, the Order was imposed without a hearing initially. Client challenged it and the Order was dismissed prior to the hearing after further investigation and developments led to the opposing party doing what was necessary - dismiss the HRO without the hearing. Client was incredibly stressed with this challenging situation and grateful for the patience and guidance of North Star in not only fighting for her, but in getting the right result.

Types of Charge(s): Misdemeanor

State v. B.S.

February, 2018
Charges: School Bus Arm Violation - Misdemeanor

Stay of Adjudication. Minimal fine and terms of one-year probation are essentially non-existent. After the year probation, this matter will be dismissed without a conviction on the client's clean record - a critical outcome for her and her future.

Types of Charge(s): Moving Violations

State v. K.L.

February, 2018
Charges: Driving After Suspension - Misdemeanor

Client pled guilty to an amended count of public nuisance. The reason for the curious outcome is that this plea - and the client had no viable option but to enter a plea - will not lead to another traffic violation ending up on his driving record. For a client with a bad driving record, this outcome does not result in further suspension of his driving privileges and does not add another violation that could have gotten him further suspended because of the sheer number of violations over a short time period. This kind of attention to detail allows for creative outcomes to put the client in the best position possible after the case is done.

Types of Charge(s): Moving Violations

Schedule a Free Consultation

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.