Key Takeaways
- FOIA requests in Michigan often lead to high costs, as exemplified by a $124.51 quote for limited police footage.
- Despite being a critical tool for accountability, FOIA requests can be hindered by excessive charges imposed by government agencies.
- The Michigan State Police budget reveals that they generate significant revenue from FOIA requests, raising questions about cost efficiency.
- Inefficient processes and poor budget management significantly contribute to the high costs associated with FOIA requests.
- Going forward, appealing excessive fees and advocating for criminal justice reform is essential for improving FOIA accessibility.
QuickFAQ
The defendant faced sentencing guidelines of 0–6 months, but the trial court imposed a 36–60 month prison sentence. The Michigan Court of Appeals remanded the case, holding that policy disagreement with sentencing guidelines does not justify an upward departure.
Yes, after People v. Lockridge, guidelines are advisory. However, departures must be proportionate and justified on the record. Policy disagreement alone is insufficient.
A Confession of Error occurs when the prosecution acknowledges a legal mistake during appeal. In Velasquez, the Assistant Prosecutor admitted error related to the plea framework.
Michigan law requires sentences to be proportionate to both the offense and the offender. Excessive upward departures risk reversal and undermine uniformity.
REPORTED HERE FIRST: Another Schipper Remand
In People v Velasquez, the Michigan Court of Appeals intervened after Barry County Circuit Court imposed a sentence far exceeding the advisory sentencing guidelines and disregarded a plea framework acknowledged during appeal.
The case illustrates a recurring issue: whether policy disagreement with legislative sentencing guidelines can justify an upward departure.
The Court of Appeals answered clearly: it cannot.
The Guideline Range vs. The Sentence
- Sentencing guidelines: 0–6 months
- Initial sentence imposed: 36–60 months in prison
During appeal, the Assistant Prosecutor filed a Confession of Error, acknowledging the government’s mistake relating to the plea structure. Listen to the oral argument here.
The Court of Appeals remanded the case.
On resentencing, the trial court imposed yet another upward departure of 396 days plus two years of house arrest, despite the guidelines remaining unchanged at 0–6 months.
Seemingly unimpressed, the appellate opinion made a key point:
“A policy disagreement does not support an upward departure.”
This language directly reinforces Michigan’s proportionality doctrine under People v Lockridge and later appellate clarifications, including People v Dixon-Bey.
Policy Disagreement vs. Legal Authority
The trial court expressed disagreement with the legislative sentencing framework.
But Michigan operates under a separation of powers system. Trial courts interpret and apply law. The Legislature enacts it. Appellate courts review it.
When a sentencing court departs upward based primarily on disagreement with legislative policy, appellate courts consistently reject that reasoning.
That principle is not controversial. It is foundational.
The Role of Plea Agreements
Michigan criminal procedure expects plea agreements to be handled transparently and honored absent lawful justification.
When plea expectations unravel at sentencing, the risk is not just individual harm. It undermines predictability in the justice system.
Predictability is not a luxury in criminal law. It is a due process safeguard.
Judicial Ethics and Rule of Law
Michigan’s Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(A), requires judges to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Repeated remands for sentencing proportionality raise institutional questions:
- Are guideline variables being accurately scored?
- Are departure reasons adequately justified on the record?
- Is appellate guidance being meaningfully incorporated on remand?
These are compliance questions, not political ones.
Why This Case Matters
Velasquez is not significant because it involved a disagreement. It is significant because:
- The guidelines were 0–6 months.
- A prison sentence of 36–60 months was imposed.
- The prosecution filed a confession of error.
- The Court of Appeals clarified that policy disagreement does not justify departure.
- Resentencing still exceeded the advisory range.
When appellate courts repeatedly correct a sentencing pattern, it becomes more than an isolated case.
It becomes data, and data creates oversight interest.
Update
Mr. Velasquez was resentenced on April 17, 2025 before Judge William Doherty. Read more here.
Sources
- People v Velasquez
- People v Lockridge
- People v Dixon-Bey
