Our Criminal Defense Attorneys are experienced in defending all types of misdemeanor cases in Minnesota. If you or a member of your family has been charged with a misdemeanor, it is helpful to speak with a lawyer as soon after you are charged in order to protect your rights and to determine potential consequences that could affect you for many years.
Depending on the type of misdemeanor charge, you could be facing severe criminal penalties and collateral consequences such as license revocation, employment and housing limitations, and possibly jail time. Petty Misdemeanors, Misdemeanors, and Gross Misdemeanors can all appear on background checks which means future employers and landlords could find out.
Oftentimes, the collateral consequences of a misdemeanor conviction are far more serious than the direct consequences of a criminal offense. A first-time theft conviction might only carry a fine and perhaps some probation conditions. The collateral consequences of a theft conviction are far more serious. Employers and landlords are reluctant to employ or rent to individuals with a theft conviction. The shoplifting charge that might not have seemed serious at first can follow folks for years and limit job opportunities and leases.
Minnesota misdemeanor offenses fall into three categories: gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, and petty misdemeanors
Examples of Petty Misdemeanors include, but are not limited to:
Examples of Misdemeanors include, but are not limited to:
Examples of Gross Misdemeanors include, but are not limited to:
The reality is that all of us likely know someone who has, at one time or another, been caught up in the criminal justice system. This does not make you a bad person! To defend your rights, we can help.
We offer flexible payment options as well as a free, 30-minute confidential consultation. Call 763-425-6330 to schedule or E-mail our Firm for a quick response.
Our criminal defense attorneys are available to answer your misdemeanor-related questions and to ensure that your rights are aggressively defended. Call 763-425-6330 or e-mail our attorney. We offer a free initial consultation and return all communications promptly.
We have successfully defended clients in or near Albertville, Anoka, Buffalo, Elk River, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, Monticello, Rogers, and St. Michael as well as other communities within Hennepin County, Stearns County, Wright County, Sherburne County, and Anoka County.
Our Criminal Defense Attorney's experience defending clients in all types of Minnesota misdemeanor and felony cases has resulted in many successful outcomes for the clients he serves. We've highlighted just a few successful cases below.
J.J. was charged in Wright County with Terroristic Threats and Criminal Damage to Property. J.J. and his friend got into a verbal altercation with several individuals while walking away from a bar in St. Michael. His friend escalated a verbal altercation by throwing an energy drink can at the individual’s car and then kicked the car. There was significant damage to the vehicle in excess of $1,000. The friend then went to J.J.’s house, recovered a firearm and returned to the scene to threaten the other individuals. J.J. took the gun from his friend and was knocked out by one of the other individuals in the argument. Law enforcement showed up and our client was charged with Terroristic Threats and Criminal Damage to Property. J.J.’s friend was charged as well. Our Criminal Defense Attorney filed a probable cause motion arguing that J.J. did not cause the damage to the car and did not make any threats that would justify a Terroristic Threat charge. The Court agreed and dismissed the two felony charges against J.J.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Charges Dropped
J.R. was charged in Hennepin County with driving 103 mph in a 65 mph zone. He retained our Criminal Defense Attorney because any speeding ticket over 100 mph carries a 6-month license revocation. We attempted to negotiate something that would involve a lower speeding ticket and the prosecutor was unwilling to budge. In August, the matter went to trial. Prior to trial, the prosecutor did not disclose the calibration and accuracy records as part of the discovery. Our Lawyer objected when the prosecutor attempted to introduce those records and the judge excluded them due to the discovery violation. Consequently, the prosecutor was unable to prove that J.R. was driving over 100 mph. The matter was resolved with a speeding ticket for driving 80 mph in a 65 mph zone. Our client did not lose his driving privileges.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: No Loss of License; Ticket Reduced to 80 MPH
N.S. was charged in Big Stone County, MN with Interference with a 911 Call, Domestic Assault, Obstructing Legal Process and Criminal Damage to Property. N.S. was alleged to have assaulted the other parent of their children. N.S. was arrested and then failed to cooperate with law enforcement and damaged a squad car. The matter was set for trial; however, prior to trial, the county attorney amended the complaint to add a felony charge of Domestic Assault by Strangulation. Our Criminal Defense Lawyer, filed a probable cause motion and successfully convinced the Court that there was not probable cause to support the charge. Consequently, the Domestic Assault by Strangulation charge was dismissed. On the morning of trial, N.S. entered a guilty plea to Obstructing Legal Process and Criminal Damage to Property because there was no dispute about those charges. Following two days of trial, the county attorney voluntarily dismissed the Interference with a 911 call charge and the jury entered deliberations on the remaining charge of Domestic Assault. After three hours of deliberation, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous agreement – they were hung 5-1 in favor of acquittal. A mistrial was declared on the Domestic Assault charge and the matter was set for a retrial. The judge excluded additional evidence that had been admitted at the first trial and as a result, the County Attorney had to dismiss the remaining charge of Domestic Assault. N.S. will be sentenced by the Court on the two non-domestic charges at a later date.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Domestic Assault Charge Dismissed
J.J. was charged in Wright County with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The items were found when police were executing a search warrant at the defendant's home for an unrelated matter. Police searched the bedroom even though she was not a suspect and the suspect lived on a lower level of the home. Criminal Defense Attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence arguing that law enforcement exceeded the scope of the search warrant. As a result, the Wright County Attorney dismissed the charges. Ultimately, the prosecutor was unable to provide the police reports from the officer who allegedly located the alleged marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Possession Charges Dismissed
A.P. was charged with driving while intoxicated in Carlton County MN. Law enforcement was called to a scene after a disagreement during a parenting time exchange occurred. The police believed that A.P. might be under the influence and arrested A.P. following a portable breath test (PBT) and was taken to the Carlton County Jail for further testing. A.P. was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) despite providing a breath test that was .07 – a level that is below Minnesota's legal limit. There was no driving conduct to support a claim that A.P. was driving while under the influence. Our Defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause. Ultimately the Carlton County Attorney agreed and dismissed the charges without a hearing.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: DWI Charge Dismissed Without a Hearing
R.B. has a ten year old daughter. The mother of the child applied for and was granted an Order for Protection (OFP) in Anoka County. R.B. retained our Criminal Defense Attorney, requesting a hearing to challenge the issuance of the OFP. Following the hearing, the judge denied the issuance of an OFP. The Court found that the petitioner had to prove that an act of domestic abuse occurred which meant that R.B. acted intentionally. The Court found that the Petitioner did not prove that R.B. acted intentionally and that consequently that domestic abuse did not occur.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Court dismissed Ex Parte OFP and R.B. can have contact with child
S.B. was charged in Wright County with a gross misdemeanor violation of a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO) and was facing a maximum sentence of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. However, the “no contact order” at issue was not a DANCO as it was not ordered by a Minnesota judge. Instead, it was a condition of release ordered in North Dakota that prohibited S.B. from contacting the purported victim. She retained our criminal defense attorney for representation and filed a motion to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause. Our Attorney argued that the order in question was not a DANCO because it was not issued in compliance with Minnesota’s DANCO statute and that there was not a provision in Minnesota’s DANCO statute that allowed for enforcement of out of state “no contact orders.” The Judge agreed with our Lawyer's argument and dismissed the gross misdemeanor charge that had been filed against D.B. When we notified D.B. of the result, she replied, “Thank you for everything! I wish you would have been my lawyer here. Thanks so much!”
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Gross Misdemeanor Charge Dismissed
I.H. was charged with four counts of domestic assault against his wife and then 16-year-old son in Sherburne County. Our client was involved in a physical altercation with his son in which he restrained him to prevent aggressiveness. Prior to the incident his son had engaged in a pattern of behavior where he would act out by throwing objects, punching holes in walls, and engaging in other destructive trouble. I.H. saw his son become agitated and believed that he may again act out, he restrained him against a bank of cabinets. The Mother\Wife heard the commotion and came out to separate the two. In the process of doing so, she was inadvertently knocked to the ground. Law enforcement was dispatched and I.H. was charged with one count of Domestic Assault (Harm) and one count of Domestic Assault (Fear) against both his son and his wife.
During two days of trial, our Defense Lawyer argued that I.H. was attempting to prevent his son from causing harm to himself, others, or the home. During so his wife was unintentionally knocked to the ground.
After two hours of deliberation, the jury agreed with our Attorney's arguments and acquitted I.H. on all four charges.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Acquitted on All Charges
D.T.S. was previously represented by a public defender, however, after he got a job, he no longer qualified for a public defender and hired our Defense Lawyer. Prior to hiring Martin & Wagner Law, D.T.S. had pleaded guilty to a felony DANCO violation. There was no plea agreement and he faced 36 months in prison. Following our criminal defense advice, D.T.S. did a chemical health assessment, entered outpatient treatment, and individual counseling, and continued working hard. To show that he was taking positive steps, D.T.S.' employer provided a letter of recommendation and his mother submitted a letter to the Court as well. D.T.S.' work and commitment to making a difference ultimately led to the victim and victim's mother also writing letters to the Court supporting a probationary sentence. D.T.S. was sentenced to probation, over the objection of the Sherburne County prosecutor. The Judge gave D.T.S credit for time served and an opportunity to prove to the Court that he can successfully complete probation and remain out of prison.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Probation Awarded
G.F. was charged with and pleaded guilty to a number of traffic violations. The violations occurred several years prior to the guilty pleas and were not resolved because G.F. was serving a prison sentence on an unrelated offense. G.F. contacted our criminal defense attorney to see if he could do anything to get his driver's license back. We filed motions in both Anoka and Hennepin County to address the license revocations. In Anoka County, the judge agreed to vacate the license suspensions associated with the offenses. In Hennepin County, the judge agreed to reduce the license suspension to 60 days. G.F. is now eligible to get a valid driver’s license and get back to driving legally.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Driver's License Reinstated
Our client is 16 years old, three weeks after she started driving alone, was charged with speeding – 79 mph in a 55 mph zone. Our Criminal Defense Attorney was retained to help keep the matter off of our client's driving record so it would not result in an increase in insurance rates or affect her driving status. After unsuccessful negotiations with the Wright County Prosecuting Attorney, we were able to convince the Judge to grant a stay of adjudication which would keep the matter off of her driving record. We convinced the judge that she should not be worse off because she was speeding vs. committing a more serious offense like theft or assault where the matter would be handled in juvenile court. The judge agreed with our Attorney's argument and ultimately stayed adjudication on the grounds that our client pays $100 in court costs and does not have any moving violations for one year. The charge will be dismissed and removed from our client's record if she meets these conditions.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Speeding Ticket Dismissed
R.G.R. was charged in Washington County with a violation of an Order for Protection (OFP). Our client was alleged to have violated the order by making a request to view an essay in Google Docs which had been composed by his daughter who was protected by the OFP. His daughter received the request from Google, which referenced her father’s email address. She then reported the violation to law enforcement and he was charged with violating the OFP. Our client was initially represented by a public defender. The prosecutor had offered R.G.R. a Continuance for Dismissal (CFD). He rejected that offer then hired our Criminal Defense Attorney. The matter was set for trial. Martin & Wagner discussed the matter with the prosecutor and made it clear that due to the lack of any investigation by law enforcement that the State would likely be unable to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor reiterated the offer for the CFD, but when it became clear that the case was going to proceed to trial, he dismissed the charges against R.G.R.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: OFP Dropped
D.S. was charged in Wright County with 2nd Degree Drug Possession of 100 doses of ecstasy that were found during a search of his apartment. He was facing 25 years of probation with four years of prison over his head. The search occurred because our client's roommate was on probation and his supervision was being transferred to Wright County. The probation agent wrongly assumed that our client’s roommate was on a drug abstention and random testing requirement. He was not on such a condition of probation. Our Lawyer filed a motion to suppress, or throw out, the evidence found during the search because there was not an exception to the warrant requirement that applied to the situation. The Wright County Attorney agreed and dismissed the charge without even having a suppression hearing.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: All Charges Dropped
M.D.M. was the respondent to a Harassment Restraining Order in Hennepin County. This is the third in a series of orders that have been issued over the years. In 2018, our client's wife applied for an Order for Protection (OFP). That request was denied, but the matter was set for a hearing at the Petitioner’s request. M.D.M. hired our Criminal Defense Attorney at Law and after several court appearances, the Petitioner agreed to voluntarily dismiss the request for the O.F.P. and went to Court again 12 months later. She applied for an OFP which was denied and the case was set for a hearing. Several days later she applied for an HRO, which was granted. Our client hired a Martin & Wagner Criminal Defense Lawyer on both matters. The Petitioner agreed to withdraw her request for the OFP and a contested HRO hearing was held, which was denied. In April, the Petitioner again applied for an HRO; this time it was granted. A Martin & Wagner Lawyer was again retained. The Court dismissed the HRO at the initial hearing and the referee found that the HRO should have never been issued in the first place. The case is now pending before the judge handling the divorce on our lawyer's motion for sanctions because of the Petitioner’s abuse of the Court process.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: OFP Dropped, HRO Pending
J.J.B. was charged in Hennepin County with Presenting a Prohibited Item at a Security Checkpoint. Our client was catching a flight at the airport and went through security without remembering that he had a cased, unloaded firearm in his backpack. He was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for doing so. Throughout the process, the City Attorney was insistent that our defendant pleads guilty to the misdemeanor with a $500 fine and forfeiture of the firearm. Our Attorney at Law presented the City with documentation on how this would affect J.J.B.’s job to no avail. Ultimately, he pleads guilty to the Court, without an agreement. The Judge sentenced our client to a $300 fine and did not order forfeiture of the gun. This is a petty misdemeanor result which is not a criminal conviction and will not affect J.J.B.’s job. Ultimately, the Judge was persuaded by the potential negative outcomes that might fact if he was convicted of the offense and he rejected the State’s argument for a misdemeanor conviction.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Fine Lowered, No Forfeiture
Charged with 4th Degree DWI, JP was pulled over for not signaling a turn and blew a .11. NP completed an alcohol assessment and a MADD victim impact panel. Our Criminal Defense Attorney was able to use that program completion along with the client's status as an active-duty military member as a basis to negotiate down to a careless driving charge. The client was not sentenced to serve any jail time and instead had to pay a $250 fine, complete a 12-hour education class, and remain law-abiding.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: DWI dropped for Careless Driving Violation
A husband, in the midst of a divorce proceeding, contacted our office After the wife applied for a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) which was denied and was set for a hearing. Two days after the HRO was denied, she applied for an Order for Protection (OFP) which was granted. Both matters were set for a hearing. With the attorney's help in negotiation, the wife agreed not to seek the OFP, and following a contested hearing, the Court denied her request for an HRO.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Harassment Order Denied
A.R. was charged with Fifth Degree Controlled Substance Crime (Possession). When A.R. was pulled over for an equipment violation, he had a warrant for his arrest and was placed in custody. Law enforcement made the decision to impound his vehicle and an officer performed what was supposed to be an “inventory” search. During the search, the officer located a trace amount of methamphetamine in the pocket of a pair of jeans; however, the officer failed to follow the Coon Rapids Police Department’s inventory search policy. Following a contested hearing, Anoka County Judge agreed that law enforcement had not followed policy and suppressed the evidence against A.R.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: The charge was dismissed.
J.G. hired a Martin & Wagner Criminal Defense Attorney after being served with an Order for Protection (OFP). The petitioner was a tenant who lived with him in his home. As a result, he had to move out of his home and sleep on the couch of a friend. Several days later, our client applied for a Harassment Restraining Order against the petitioner. The Court denied the request for an HRO but set the matter for a hearing on May 9, 2018. Anoka County court held a consolidated hearing on the OFP and the HRO and after receiving testimony from both parties, the Court found that the client had not engaged in domestic abuse and canceled the OFP against J.G. The Court separately found that the tenant had engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct meant to negatively impact our client and issued an HRO against the tenant.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: As a result, J.G. will be able to return to the home he owns and the tenant will have to move out. He was very happy with the result.
KME was charged with a misdemeanor violation of a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) in Blaine, MN. An HRO Violation is a misdemeanor offense that is enhanceable in Minnesota, which means that the charge can be made more serious up to a gross misdemeanor or even a felony. Martin & Wagner Law Firm was hired by KME and was able to negotiate a Continuance Without Plea for dismissal (CWOP) with the prosecutor due to the client's lack of criminal history, minimal conduct, age, and remorse for the situation. This resulted in a "no conviction." The defendant agrees to pay $175.00 in costs and to avoid any same or similar charges for a year.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Because there are no prior charges on record and if conditions are met, the charge will be dismissed.
A client was charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court found that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed both items when the passenger in the motor vehicle admitted possessing a marijuana pipe and our client denied possessing both.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Following a court trial he was found not guilty of both charges.
Our client was charged with Fifth Degree Assault; a misdemeanor charge which carries a maximum sentence of 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. More importantly, Fifth Degree Assault is enhanceable which means that a conviction will automatically make a future charge a gross misdemeanor if it occurs within the next 10 years. The Client was steadfast in his position that no assault occurred. On the day of trial, the State dismissed the charges because the alleged victim was uncooperative and did not show. Taking a stand is important and having an attorney to help defend your rights can make that more effective and successful.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Our client achieved the vindication he was looking for.
A 20 year old client was charged with a First Degree Controlled Substance Offense. He was facing 65 months in prison for being in possession of more than one pound of cocaine. Following a guilty plea and argument from the criminal defense attorney, the Court agreed to place him on probation. The young man will not have to serve any additional jail time beyond the two days he already served and instead will face a combination of electronic house arrest and community service.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Upon successful completion of probation, the felony conviction will be reduced to a misdemeanor.
A Juvenile was charged with Speeding, Violation of a Provisional License, Open Bottle Violation; and Use of Tobacco by a Minor. After reviewing the police reports, we filed a Motion to Suppress because the search of the vehicle was unconstitutional. The County Attorney agreed and dismissed the Open Bottle Violation and Use of Tobacco by a Minor as well as the Speeding charges. Juvenile A pleaded guilty to Violation of Provisional License. Juvenile A received a Stay of Adjudication on the condition that he complete an Alive by 25 class and have no moving violations for six months.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: If conditions are, the charge will be dismissed.
Martin & Wagner Law Firm was hired on a pretrial basis after he was contacted by Anoka County Human Services about the alleged Financial Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult. We met with the client about the allegations and directed them as to what bank and financial records would be useful in establishing their innocence. Our Criminal Defense Attorney and the client met with the Anoka County Social Worker and discussed the underlying allegations. They also provided the relevant documentation both at the meeting and following the meeting once they were aware that additional records might be relevant.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: Ultimately, Anoka County found the allegations to be “inconclusive” and the file was closed.
J.A.S. was charged with a violation of the Champlin noise ordinance for having a party for her son and his friends in her backyard with a karaoke machine. A neighbor made complaints about how loud the music was and as a result, a citation was issued. Martin & Wagner challenged the Champlin noise ordinance as “void of vagueness.”
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: The Judge agreed that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and dismissed the charge completely.
Charged in Freeborn County with a misdemeanor Violation of an Order for Protection (OFP), T.O. was facing a maximum sentence of 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine with an OFP violation enhanceable offense that can eventually be charged as gross misdemeanors or even felonies. Our Criminal Defense Attorney was able to secure a stay of adjudication, which means that T.O. will not have a conviction on record if probation is successfully completed and the charge will be dismissed.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: The client did not have to serve any jail time and will only have to pay a $75.00 non-conviction fee.
JL was subject to an Order for Protection (OFP) that constrained contact with his two children. JL complied with the request issued in Wright County and completed anger management and parenting classes. He had likewise gone to guiding meetings with his child. Unfortunately, his advocate was ill-equipped to suggest extra contact with his children. As a result, the mother appealed to the Court to broaden the OFP for an extra year. The mother's lawyer contended that the disappointment of the counselor to prescribe reunification was a premise to expand the OFP an extra year. I argued to the Court that JL had done all that he could do and that this was a family law issue as opposed to an OFP issue.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: The Court embraced my reasoning and denied the demand for expanding the OFP.
K.M.F-H. was charged with a Felony 5th Degree Controlled Substance Crime for the alleged possession of heroin. The charge was based upon a NIK test, which is a presumptive test for the presence of controlled substances. The NIK alone does not confirm that a particular substance is illegal or what that substance might actually be. When the item was sent in for testing, the test results did not reveal heroin. Possession of the same amount of methamphetamine is only a Gross Misdemeanor. Her public defender did not address this problem. K.M.F-H. retained a Criminal Defense Attorney through Martin & Wagner and he immediately filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause because the complaint charged her with a more serious offense based upon an inaccurate test.
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: The County Attorney ultimately agreed and amended the charge to a Gross Misdemeanor which is a far less serious offense.
T.G. was facing his third probation violation since being sentenced. During the pendency of the violation, his probation agent filed two addendums alleging additional violations of probation. His probation agent was recommending 120 days in jail as a sanction for violating probation. T.G. admitted to violating probation and after an extensive argument about his sanction, the Court ordered him to serve 10 days in jail immediately. The court then stayed an additional 80 days in jail with a report date a few months later. If T.G. complies with probation in the interim he will not have to serve those days in jail. Result: Hiring counsel helped him avoid serving 110 days in jail.
J.O. was charged with failure to drive with due care as a result of a three-car accident. The charge was a misdemeanor because there were claims by the other drivers that there were injuries and property damage. Law enforcement did not take photographs of the purported property damage and there were no medical records to substantiate the claims of injury. J.O. ultimately received a CWOP (continuance without a plea for dismissal). He agreed to pay a $200 fine and the charge will be dismissed as long as J.O. isn’t charged with the same or similar offense.
K.R. was served two applications for Harassment Restraining Orders (HROs) by her ex-husband and his new fiancée. Following a hearing in Wright County, the Court found that there was no basis to support the issuance of an HRO protecting her ex-husband. A week later, the fiancée failed to show up for the hearing on her application for an HRO and the case was dismissed.
Juvenile A was charged as a juvenile with Speeding, Violation of a Provisional License, Open Bottle Violation; and Use of Tobacco by a Minor. After reviewing the police reports, we filed a Motion to Suppress because the search of the vehicle was unconstitutional. The County Attorney agreed and dismissed the Open Bottle Violation and Use of Tobacco by a Minor as well as the Speeding charges. Juvenile A pleaded guilty to Violation of Provisional License. Juvenile A received a Stay of Adjudication on the condition that he complete an Alive by 25 class and have no moving violations for six months. If he meets these conditions, the charge will be dismissed.
Call 763-425-6330 to schedule a free, 1/2-hour confidential consultation to discuss your case. We offer flexible payment options. E-mail our Firm
Known for protecting rights, Martin & Wagner Law Firm has successfully defended clients charged with significant crimes such as Assault in the First Degree, Felony Domestic Assault, and False Imprisonment. He has handled cases in Albertville, Anoka, Buffalo, Elk River, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, Monticello, Rogers, St. Cloud, and St. Michael as well as other communities within Hennepin County, Stearns County, Wright County, Sherburne County, and Anoka County.
We offer flexible payment options and are conveniently located in Rogers, MN. The reality is that all of us know someone who has, at one time or another, been caught up in the criminal justice system. This does not make you a bad person! Find out how our law firm can help you.
Call to schedule a free 1/2 hour consultation: 763-425-6330. You may also Email our Firm for a quick response.
If you have been charged with a serious felony like Murder, Criminal Sexual Conduct, Domestic Assault, DUI / DWI, traffic violations, theft, assault, or any other crime in Minnesota, it is extremely important to contact a defense attorney quickly. The sooner we begin working on your case, the better chance you have to protect your rights. Our law firm can help - call to schedule a free, confidential legal consultation with our criminal defense lawyer: 763-425-6330 or E-mail our Firm for a quick response.
When you are charged or arrested, it can seem like everything you have worked for could be lost. You may be embarrassed, intimidated, and not know where to begin to defend yourself against criminal charges especially if this is your first contact with the criminal justice system.
At the Rogers, MN criminal defense law firm of Martin & Wagner, you have an aggressive criminal defense lawyer who acts quickly and effectively on your behalf. We serve clients in Hennepin County, Stearns County, Wright County, Sherburne County, and Anoka County.
We work hard to protect your rights and minimize fines and consequences. Martin & Wagner Law Firm is an experienced criminal defense attorney representing clients who have been arrested for all levels and types of criminal charges including DUI, DWI, theft, assault, serious traffic violations, drug possession, kidnapping, and other misdemeanors and felonies. To schedule a free, confidential consultation call 763-425-6330. Our office is conveniently located in Rogers, MN between Maple Grove and St. Michael just off of I-94.
Call our criminal defense lawyers to help you understand the nature of the charges against you and what you can do to put your best foot forward in a criminal defense case. We understand the system and the ramifications of being charged with a crime. We will work aggressively, both in court and behind the scenes, to protect your rights, your reputation, and your freedom.
Contact Martin & Wagner at 763-425-6330 - DUI, DWI, Assault, Traffic Violation, and Theft Defense Attorney in Rogers, Minnesota.
We accept credit cards, cash, and checks.
Free Half-Hour Consultation
When you are convicted of a crime in Minnesota or have pled guilty with a plea agreement you may be ordered to follow recommendations of probation. Probation is designed to help monitor offenders. Most times if probation is supervised there are conditions that must be met such as treatment programs or community service, etc. While on probation you must be law abiding and have no same or similar offenses.
If you are charged with another crime or are accused of violating your conditions of probation your probation may be violated or revoked and you could face jail time. It is important to contact an attorney as soon after you have been accused of probation violation so that we can help build a defense for you.
If you are charged with a probation violation contact Martin & Wagner, our experienced probation violation attorneys will explain the process and assist you throughout the process.
Call Our Defense Attorney for a FREE Consultation: 763-425-6330
Attorney experienced in probation violation cases in or near Albertville, Anoka, Buffalo, Elk River, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, Monticello, Rogers, and St. Michael as well as other communities within Hennepin County, Stearns County, Wright County, Sherburne County, and Anoka County.
Free Half Hour Initial Consultation
763-425-6330
