Judge Michael Schipper Defies the Court — Again
The saga of Judge Michael Schipper of the Barry County Circuit Court (Michigan) continues to raise profound questions about judicial accountability, the role of appellate oversight, and the integrity of sentencing in our criminal justice system. After having been directed by the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) to resentence within the legislative guidelines (twice), Judge Schipper once again imposed a sentence well outside that framework. This pattern significantly undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers baked into our sentencing statutes.
The Arizola Case in Brief
In the case of Mark Alan Arizola (Docket No. 366508 in Barry County), the sentencing guideline range for his primary offense was 19-76 months. Despite that, Judge Schipper originally imposed a sentence of 240-480 months (20-40 years) for the felon-in-possession count, plus two years for a related felony-firearm count. The Court of Appeals vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing. At resentencing, rather than correct the departure, Schipper again imposed 120-480 months, a sentence still far outside the guideline range.
Schipper’s refusal to follow orders has now created a second Court of Appeals case. It is unknown whether the Prosecutor’s office is complicit in this failure to adhere to the law, but should cause concern.
Why This Matters
It is one again, intellectually dishonest for Prosecutors and law enforcement to complain about a record number of cases, when the Circuit Court judge is clogging the system with cases that have to be revisited again and again. It also doesn’t help that County “leaders” refuse to implement mental health and diversion programs to get people the help they need.
Focusing solely on Schipper, here’s the bigger problem:
- Judicial duty vs. judicial activism: Judge Schipper has publicly treated the guidelines as optional and the appellate process as secondary to his own judicial discretion, which clashes with the Legislature’s purpose in creating the sentencing guidelines. He has stated on court record that he “can do whatever” he wants, even if it appears unconstitutional on the outside looking in.
- Undermining appellate direction: The Court of Appeals has repeatedly told the trial court to follow the guidelines unless departure reasons are valid and documented. Schipper’s blatant disregard of those remands erodes appellate authority.
- Judicial ethics concerns: Judges are meant to apply the law, not override the Legislature, ignore higher-court mandates, or treat guidelines as mere suggestions. When one judge does so repeatedly, public confidence is threatened. He does not believe in Separation of Powers; he wants to be a big tyrant in a little rural town.
To be clear, lower courts must follow decisions of higher courts even if they believe the higher court’s decision was wrongly decided or has become obsolete. Paige v Sterling Hts, 476 Mich 495, 524; 720 NW2d 219 (2006).
If a trial judge is unable to follow the law as determined by a higher appellate court, the trial judge is in the wrong line of work. See Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 and Canon 3(A)(1); see also Pellegrino, 486 Mich at 352.
October 6, 2025: Appeals Court Once Again Intervenes
As of October 6, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals has docketed the Arizola case anew. According to the COA’s online case search, the matter of People of Michigan v. Mark Alan Arizola, case number 68782 and has the appellate court flagged as reviewing the trial court’s resentencing.
This renewed appellate review signals that Judge Schipper’s latest resentencing remains subject to correction. This is especially significant, as Schipper had three remands last year, all in the span of 6 months. It’s a clear indicator that the appellate process is actively engaged in ensuring compliance with the law and guidelines.
What this renewed review means
- Second (or further) remand is likely: Given that the Court of Appeals already vacated the initial sentence and found the new sentence still outside guideline ranges, this new docketing suggests the appellate court may force another resentencing or, with any luck, formally rebuke the trial court’s approach. And it may once again, decree that another judge carry out resentencing, as Schipper is incapable of following directions.
- Legal and ethical stakes are higher: Judicial accountability is not just about this one defendant; it is about whether sentencing rules are honored, whether appellate decisions carry import, and whether judges will be free to impose sentences untethered from legislative policy.
- A precedent-setting watch: If the appellate court intervenes robustly, it could set a clearer standard for how far a judge may depart from guideline sentencing and how strictly appellate remands must be followed in Michigan, preventing Schipper from wasting people’s time and money.
- Bleeding the taxpayers dry: by revisiting cases over and over by failing to do the right thing from the beginning, Judge Michael Schipper is bleeding taxpayers dry. This is especially wasteful as Barry County cites a record year for cases and he keeps forcing them back into his court through his blatantly irresponsible and unconstitutional behavior.
The Bigger Picture: Not Just One Case
Judge Schipper’s repeated out-of‐control and out-of-guideline sentences in Barry County cannot be dismissed as an isolated anomaly. They represent a pattern that threatens proportionality, consistency, and fairness in sentencing. The Arizola case is symptomatic of a court culture in which guideline ranges are treated as optional and appellate mandates as advisory.
Consistent justice demands that a defendant’s sentence be grounded in law, reasoned discretion, and transparency, not the whim of a judge who willfully treats guidelines as suggestions.
What Should Happen Now
- Close monitoring of the appeals court action: Observers, defendants, and advocacy groups should watch the COA docket closely for its next move in Arizola.
- Formal ethics review: If Judge Schipper continues to disregard guideline ranges and appellate commands without valid record-based justification, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission true needs to consider investigation, testing his cognitive abilities, as they did with Judge Kirsten Hartig.
- Legislative consideration: The Michigan Legislature should consider strengthening oversight or clarifying consequences when trial courts repeatedly ignore sentencing guidelines and appellate direction.
- Local transparency and reporting: Barry County’s legal community, media, and civil-rights organizations should demand full disclosure of sentencing rationale and ensure defendants are treated equitably. As previously reported, Judge Schipper is tightly controlling the Barry County media, only allowing Dennis Mansfield of The Hastings Banner to be the only media voice in his courtroom.
Pulling It All Together
With the Arizola case now back at the Michigan Court of Appeals as of October 6, 2025, the record makes clear that Judge Michael Schipper’s approach to sentencing is not just questionable, it is being formally reviewed for legality. The repeated departure from guideline ranges, the shrugging of appellate remands, and the erosion of legislative intent all point to a failure not just of judicial discretion, but of judicial responsibility itself.
Judge Schipper wants all of the power without any accountability.
The message from the appellate court must be unambiguous: judges do not legislate from the bench; they apply the law as written, respect the Legislature’s policy, and heed higher-court commands. Anything less is not justice; it is a failure of the system and the people of Barry County, of Michigan even, deserve better.
This week, clutch will be submitting a formal Judicial Tenure Commission complaint challenging Judge Schipper’s dictatorship, and with any luck, bringing accountability to Barry County.
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
