Mike Villafranca
Mike Villafranca practices exclusively in criminal defense representing clients charged with offenses ranging from serious felonies to misdemeanor traffic violations. As a trial lawyer, he has represented individuals charged in both state and federal court with offenses including homicide, criminal sexual conduct, Medicare fraud, domestic assault, DWI/DUI, possession and production of child pornography, drug possession and sale, and many lower-level offenses like reckless driving, possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle, and failure to yield the right-of-way. Mike also enjoys meeting clients who have moved on from their old mistakes and helping those clients bring petitions to expunge and seal criminal records, as well as petitions to restore gun rights.
Mike is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School and received his bachelor's degree in philosophy from Boston College. Prior to law school, he worked in technology sales in the Boston area. He has worked for attorney Eric J. Olson since his last year of law school and previously worked for the Dakota County Public Defender's office in Hastings, MN. He has dedicated his legal career to representing individuals charged with criminal offenses, and he is licensed to do so in the State of Minnesota and in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Mike's hobbies include spending time with his wife and three young sons, hunting, cooking, and reading history books.
Phone: 952-835-1088
Fax: 952-835-4660
Email: [email protected]
Education
Juris Doctor, University of Minnesota Law School
Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy, Boston College
Admissions
State of Minnesota
United Sates District Court for the District of Minnesota
Sample Representations:
State v. K.R.: The State charged client K.R. with felony domestic assault for allegedly strangling his girlfriend. In pre-trial motions, Mike succeeded in excluding a significant amount of evidence, including the recording of the girlfriend's initial statements. Because Mike succeeded in excluding so much evidence, the State knew it could not prove its case and dismissed all charges.
State v. P.S.: The State charged client P.S. with a controlled substance DWI/DUI after a blood test showed that P.S. had metabolites of a controlled substance in his blood while driving a motor vehicle. After reviewing the evidence, Mike brought a motion to suppress the blood test evidence because the police officer who applied for the warrant to search P.S.'s blood made false statements in the warrant application. Based on the motion, the State dismissed all DWI/DUI charges, and P.S. paid a $50 ticket for driving with expired tabs. Mike then prevailed in an implied consent hearing on the same issue, and P.S.'s driver's license was fully restored.
State v. E.L.: The State charged client E.L. with harassment after E.L. repeatedly approached the same woman to ask her for a date at both her home and at her place of work. After reviewing the evidence, Mike persuaded the prosecutor that the encounters at the woman's home and workplace were chance encounters, and he brought a motion to dismiss the case for lack of probable cause. Upon receiving the motion, and after ongoing conversations with Mike, the prosecutor agreed that she could not prove the case at trial and dismissed all charges.
United States v. D.W.: The United States charged client D.W. in federal court with production of child pornography. Unfortunately, D.W.'s guilt was never in question - he pled guilty to the offense at his arraignment. Mike became involved with the case before D.W.'s sentencing hearing. Based on federal sentencing guidelines, D.W.'s expected sentence was 80 years in prison. Mike filed a lengthy memorandum arguing that the sentencing guidelines unjustly exaggerated D.W.'s culpability for the offense and arguing that D.W. was a unique young man deserving of a second chance. After reviewing Mike's sentencing memorandum and the arguments of the Government, the judge sentenced D.W. to a substantially shorter sentence. Instead of dying in federal prison at some point during an 80 year sentence, D.W. will be paroled when he is 36 years old, and he will have a second chance at life.
State v. C.G.: The State charged client C.G. with DWI/DUI for refusing to submit to a breath test. Mike won on three motions. First, Mike showed that the arresting officer did not allow C.G. to call the lawyers of his choosing (Olson Defense) before taking the breath test. Based on that motion, the Court dismissed the most serious charge. Second, Mike successfully argued that the lower level DWI was improperly aggravated based on C.G.'s two prior convictions for underage drinking and driving, and those charges were also dismissed. Finally, Mike brought a motion to prohibit the State from amending the complaint to properly charge the correct DWI/DUI offense because the State did not meet the required deadline, and the Court agreed with Mike for a third time. As a result of these successful motions, C.G. beat all the DWI/DUI charges.