- Home
- Criminal Defense
- Arson & Negligent Fires
- Assault
- Burglary
- Child Neglect
- Criminal Vehicular Operation
- Disorderly Conduct
- Domestic Assault
- Drug Crimes
- Federal Crimes
- Gun Rights Restoration
- Malicious Punishment of a Child
- Murder/Homicide
- Obstructing Legal Process
- Pre-Charge Representation
- Probation Violations
- Robbery
- Sex Crimes
- Sexual Assault
- Theft
- Threats of Violence
- Traffic Ticket Attorney
- Underage Drinking Crimes
- Weapons Charges
- White Collar Crimes
- Dwi Lawyers
- 1st Degree DWI Minnesota
- 2nd Degree DWI Minnesota
- 3rd Degree DWI Minnesota
- 4th Degree DWI Minnesota
- Implied Consent Law
- License Consequences
- License Plate Impoundment
- Limited License
- Bail & Conditional Release
- Mandatory Penalties
- DWI Defenses
- Minnesota DWI Laws
- Field Sobriety Tests
- Vehicle Forfeiture
- Ignition Interlock Device
- DWI Case Results
- Expungement Law
- Case Results
- Assault Case Results
- Domestic Assault Case Results
- Drug Crime Case Results
- DWI Case Results
- Expungement Case Results
- Felonies
- Gross Misdemeanor
- Misdemeanor
- Obstructing Legal Process Case Results
- Sex Crimes
- Theft & Shoplifting Case Results
- Threats of Violence Case Results
- Traffic Violations Case Results
- About
- Blog
- Contact Us
State v. M.D.
January, 2018
Charges: 3 separate cases out of two counties. In one county, the client had two cases: one misdemeanor obstruction of legal process and one misdemeanor public intoxication. In the other county, the client picked up a misdemeanor disorderly conduct and fleeing on foot.
Resolution:
Stays of adjudication on the obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct charges, and then a petty misdemeanor sentence for the public intoxication. Because of this incredible result, the client's future is saved. He is a National Guard member and would have been barred from being deployed later this year and possibly discharged from the service if he was convicted of these offenses. The primary county initially was steadfast in claiming it needed a plea to the obstruction charge because the client already had a stay of adjudication in the other county. Yet, with the right approach by Mr. Gempeler and some proactive measures taken by the client, the State agreed to give the client a second chance and earn the right to keep his future intact. It's a tremendous result and shows just how committed the team at North Star is in looking big picture and fighting for your future.
Types of Charge(s): Obstructing Legal Process Case Results