- Judge Schipper routinely imposes sentences far beyond what Michigan Sentencing Guidelines recommend, with multiple cases remanded by the Court of Appeals for disproportionality.
- He has stated on record that he knows prison does not work — and then continues to exceed guidelines anyway.
- Mitigating factors including traumatic brain injury, military service, and mental illness are consistently disregarded at sentencing.
- Appellate opinions have required removal of sentencing language blocking all outside contact, raising Eighth Amendment concerns.
- Schipper consistently gives prosecutors exactly what they ask for, raising documented separation-of-powers concerns.
- This pattern contributes to mass incarceration, family destruction, and wasted taxpayer resources — in a county that has no veterans court, no job court, and no diversion programming.
Barry County Michigan Circuit Court Judge Michael L. Schipper regularly complains that sentencing guidelines are “man-made” and that “people in Lansing don’t know how things really work.” He claims to care about people while disregarding human rights and brain science. He has stated on record that prison does not work — and then continues to sentence people well beyond what the law recommends.
In recent years, the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) has released a series of opinions on Schipper’s rulings that collectively paint an unmistakable picture: Judge Michael Lee Schipper chronically abuses sentencing discretion in ways that are disproportionate, procedurally deficient, and constitutionally problematic.
It is also worth noting that he is now teaching classes on court systems and law — something he does not appear to believe in following.
Understanding Upward Departures in Michigan
An upward departure is a sentence that exceeds the range recommended by the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines, which are prepared by the Michigan Judicial Institute to create uniformity across the state. Following People v. Lockridge, guidelines became advisory rather than mandatory — but that does not mean optional. Judges must still impose proportionate sentences and articulate specific, substantial justification for any departure from the recommended range.
Judge Schipper departs upward in case after case. The COA remands those cases, citing disproportionality and failure to justify the departure. Schipper then resentences — often with a second upward departure. That is not a corrected error. That is a refusal to follow the law.
The Record: COA-Remanded Departure Cases
The cases below represent documented instances where the Michigan Court of Appeals was required to intervene because Schipper’s sentences were found to be unreasonable, disproportionate, or insufficiently justified. In each case, the actual sentence far exceeded both the guideline range and, in several instances, what prosecutors requested.
| Case | Guideline Range | Schipper’s Sentence | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| People v. Lake | 11.25 – 18.75 years | 50 – 80 years | Sentence more than 2.5x the top of guidelines |
| People v. Podbevsek | 5 – 28 months | 60 – 90 months | Gave prosecutor exactly what was requested |
| People v. Evans | 5 – 34 months | 10 years | More than 3.5x the top of guidelines |
| People v. Arizola | 19 – 76 months | 240 – 480 months | Defense called prosecution “intellectually dishonest” at oral argument |
| People v. Handley | 29 – 57 months | 120 – 180 months | Sentence more than 3x the top of guidelines |
| People v. Velasquez | 0 – 6 months | 36 – 60 months | Prosecutor filed Confession of Error on appeal |
| People v. Williams (pending MSC) | 12 – 20 months | 10 – 20 years | Non-violent offense; PSIR recommended 90 days |
Case Deep Dive: People v. Huggins
Of all the cases in Schipper’s recent record, People v. Huggins most fully illustrates the scope of what happens when a judge disregards mitigating factors, ignores prosecutorial misconduct, and then refuses to comply with appellate correction.
Keith Huggins is a military veteran who sustained a traumatic brain injury during his service in Iraq. He experienced a mental health emergency. Under Michigan law and established sentencing principles, documented TBI and military service history are recognized mitigating factors that must be meaningfully incorporated into sentencing analysis. Neither the assistant prosecutor nor Judge Schipper treated them as such.
The assistant prosecutor made unsubstantiated accusations during allocution, including a claim that Huggins attempted “suicide by cop” — a characterization not supported by the evidence and one that violates the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit lawyers from making statements of fact they cannot reasonably believe to be true. The judge did not challenge this conduct. He gave the prosecutor exactly what was requested: 120 to 360 months.
The Michigan Court of Appeals found the sentence inappropriate and remanded. Schipper did not resentence within guidelines. In May 2024, he imposed a second upward departure of 76 to 360 months — still well outside the 9 to 46 month guideline range, and still without adequate justification for why the departure was proportionate.
Barry County does not have and has expressed no interest in developing a Veterans Treatment Court, despite serving a community with a significant veteran population. The Huggins case is a direct consequence of that policy vacuum.
People v. Velasquez: When the Prosecution Admits the Error
Guideline range: 0 – 6 months. Schipper’s sentence: 36 – 60 months.
During the appeal of this case, the Assistant Prosecutor submitted a formal Confession of Error — a documented acknowledgment that the government itself made a mistake. This is a rare and significant event. It means that even the prosecution recognized the sentence could not be defended on appeal. A plea agreement was also involved in this case, suggesting additional due process concerns around how plea terms were honored at sentencing.
Update (January 2025): The COA intervened again because Schipper refused to comply with its direction. Read the full follow-up →
Eighth Amendment Violations: Blocking All Outside Contact
Schipper’s unconstitutional sentencing is not limited to duration. Less than two months apart, the Michigan Court of Appeals was required to order him to remove language from sentencing orders that indefinitely blocked an incarcerated person from any outside contact with the world.
Schipper’s Own Words: “Prison Doesn’t Work.”
The Tail Wagging the Dog: Prosecution Deference
Judges and prosecutors are separate branches of government. They are not to operate in coordination. A judge is an independent fact-finder, not an extension of the prosecution. That independence is what gives judicial decisions their legitimacy.
In Schipper’s courtroom, the record tells a different story. Across dozens of cases, he gives prosecutors exactly what they ask for — at the maximum, outside guidelines — and rarely, if ever, below. Around the 7-minute mark of one COA oral argument, appellate counsel points this out directly: Schipper gave precisely the sentence the prosecutor requested in a case involving a mentally ill man charged with falsely reporting a felony against corrections staff.
Why This Pattern Has Real Consequences
Pre-Sentence Investigation Reports are prepared by the probation department and include detailed life history, trauma, mental health, and employment information. Schipper routinely disregards their recommendations. This wastes taxpayer money and signals that neither the probation department’s professional judgment nor a defendant’s documented history matters to the court.
Appeals are more expensive than trials. Disproportionate sentences force appellate courts to spend resources correcting errors that should not have been made. When a judge resentences with a second departure after remand, the entire appellate process repeats — and the judge is paid multiple times to revisit the same case he failed to get right the first time.
Michigan DOC is already facing a documented staffing shortage. Sending more people to prison for longer than necessary exacerbates every operational and resource challenge the system faces.
The Brennan Center for Justice documents the economic case against excessive incarceration: imprisonment costs exceed the crime costs it prevents in many low-harm cases, and incarcerated people who return to their communities indigent impose additional costs through healthcare and social services. Barry County prosecutes aggressively and offers no rehabilitative alternatives.
Every person sent to prison rather than diverted to rehabilitation loses income, often permanently. Their families lose housing stability, economic security, and parental presence. Mass incarceration creates intergenerational poverty. Barry County has no Job Court, no Veterans Court, and no Problem Solving Courts — while neighboring counties like Kalamazoo have built robust diversion infrastructure.
Schipper’s own docket is consistently full. If severe sentencing deterred crime, repeat appearances would decrease over time. They have not. The National Institute of Justice is unambiguous: severity of punishment is not an effective deterrent. Certainty of apprehension is. Excessive sentences do not prevent crime — they punish it at unnecessary cost and damage the community in the process.
Accountability and Fitness to Serve
Judge Schipper has served on the Barry County bench for approximately 12 years. He was appointed by Governor Rick Snyder and has largely run uncontested since, which has allowed patterns of behavior to persist without electoral check. Barry County is a small community. Uncontested seats create unaccountable judges.
A group of concerned citizens has submitted a request for investigation to the Michigan Supreme Court, documenting falsified proof of service in addition to the pattern of upward departure remands. The Judicial Tenure Commission, Michigan Supreme Court, and ultimately Barry County voters each have a role in determining whether this pattern of conduct is compatible with continued service on the bench.
Across dozens of cases, Judge Schipper has demonstrated: consistent disregard for the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines and their uniformity purpose; failure to give meaningful weight to mitigating factors including mental illness, TBI, and military service; routine deference to prosecutorial sentencing requests without independent analysis; imposition of sentencing conditions that appellate courts have found unconstitutional; refusal to comply with COA remand instructions; and repeated statements on the record that contradict his own conduct.
The Michigan Court of Appeals has done its job. The question is whether the oversight mechanisms above it — the JTC, the Supreme Court, and Barry County voters — will do theirs. Until then, as the record makes clear, Barry County is not a place that respects the Rule of Law at the sentencing level. Proceed with caution.
To file a complaint with the Judicial Tenure Commission: JTC Grievance Filing → | Clutch Justice Judicial Misconduct Database →
- People v. Lockridge — advisory guidelines framework
- People v. Dixon-Bey — proportionality and appellate authority
- People v. Velasquez — remand and confession of error
- People v. Arizola — extreme departure scrutiny
- People v. Huggins — mitigating factors, TBI, military service, second departure
- Michigan Sentencing Guidelines Manual — Michigan Judicial Institute, 2021
- Five Things About Deterrence — National Institute of Justice
- Should Judges Consider the Cost of Sentences? — Brennan Center for Justice
- Veterans Treatment Court Program — Bureau of Justice Assistance
