A woman is dead.
Another person was injured.
Judge Michael Schipper acknowledged that reckless, illegal conduct caused the crash.
…And the sentence imposed was 30 days in jail.
This is not at all a call for harsher punishment. It is a call for consistency, coherence, and honesty in how sentencing power is exercised.
Because when courts reserve restraint for some cases and abandon it in others, the damage is not just legal. It is moral.
The Case, Briefly
In January 2026, Judge Michael Schipper sentenced 19-year-old Kylee Brooks to 30 days in jail and two years of probation for felony reckless driving causing death.
Documented in a Hastings Banner article by Dennis Mansfield, the crash killed an 84-year-old woman and injured another person.
The court emphasized:
- Brooks’s youth
- The absence of drugs or alcohol
- Her role as a parent
- The idea that “the facts didn’t warrant more”
All of those considerations are lawful.
All of them are also optional.
And that is a big problem, especially when you consider with Schipper’s history of harsh upward departures in sentencing, and his claims that the Michigan legislature’s sentencing guidelines are “garbage.”
What the Guidelines Likely Said
Michigan sentencing guidelines are not vague suggestions. They are structured ranges built to promote proportionality.
Based on publicly available facts and conservative assumptions:
- A first-time offender
- No prior criminal record
- Reckless driving causing death
- Two victims
The likely guideline range would have been approximately 12 to 24 months.
That does not necessarily mandate prison. It does, however, reflect that a human life was lost. A 30-day sentence and two years of probation sit at the extremely low end of accountability, to put it mildly.
ESTIMATED SENTENCING GUIDELINES (CONSERVATIVE)
Offense of Conviction
Felony Reckless Driving Causing Death
MCL 257.626(4)
Class D felony (Michigan sentencing guidelines)
Step 1: Prior Record Variables (PRVs)
Based on publicly reported facts:
- Defendant was 19 years old
- No reported criminal history
- No reported prior traffic felonies
- No habitual offender notice
Conservative assumption (most favorable to defendant):
- PRV Level A (0–9 points)
This is the lowest PRV category and is appropriate where there is no documented criminal record.
Step 2: Offense Variables (OVs)
Below is a restrained, guideline-faithful estimate, avoiding inflation.
| OV | Description | Likely Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| OV 3 | Physical injury to victim | 25 points | Death occurred, but not intentional or enumerated offense |
| OV 9 | Number of victims | 10 points | Two victims (one deceased, one injured) |
| OV 1 | Aggravated use of weapon | 0 points | Vehicle use alone does not automatically score |
| OV 2 | Lethal potential of weapon | 0–5 points | Often not scored separately in reckless driving cases |
| OV 10 | Exploitation of vulnerability | 0 points | No exploitation |
| OV 13 | Pattern of criminal activity | 0 points | No prior pattern |
| OV 19 | Interference with justice | 0 points | No fleeing or obstruction reported |
Estimated OV Total: 35 points
Step 3: OV Level
For a Class D felony:
- OV Level III = 25–49 points
With ~35 points, this falls squarely in OV Level III.
Step 4: Guideline Grid Result (Class D Felony)
With:
- PRV Level A (0–9)
- OV Level III (25–49)
The recommended minimum sentence range would be approximately:
12 to 24 months
(Some grids display 10–23 months, depending on scoring nuance, but this range is the correct conservative band.)
Step 5: Jail vs Prison Eligibility
Because the upper end of the guideline range approaches or exceeds 12 months, this offense:
- Was prison-eligible
- Did not mandate prison
- Allowed discretion between jail and prison placement
Key point:
A prison sentence would have been lawful, guideline-compliant, and fully defensible.
Bottom-Line Guideline Reality
- The guidelines contemplated months to years, not days
- A 30-day jail sentence sits far below the guideline midpoint
- This was a lenient exercise of discretion, not a compelled outcome
Could This Have Been a Prison Sentence? Yes.
Under Michigan law, felony reckless driving causing death does not require drugs, alcohol, or intent to justify incarceration. Schipper used that as a sentencing factor when it was not a factor at all.
The sentencing guidelines in this case likely authorized:
- A minimum sentence exceeding one year
- Department of Corrections placement
- A prison sentence that would have been entirely guideline-compliant
The court explicitly acknowledged this authority. The decision not to impose prison was discretionary, not dictated by law.
That distinction matters, because discretion must be exercised consistently, not selectively. And Schipper appears to be operating entirely on selectivity when it comes to his sentencing decisions.
Schipper’s Sentencing Incoherence Track Record
Judge Michael Schipper, Barry County
Asks vs. Outcomes | Sentencing Pattern Table
| Case / Period | Prosecutor Ask (Elsworth) | Guideline Range / Reality | Judge Schipper Outcome | Court of Appeals Result |
| Early post–circuit transition cases | Above-guidelines prison framed as deterrence | Guidelines correctly scored, lower caps | Upward departures without disciplined proportionality | Remands / corrections |
| People v. Velasquez (initial) | Above-guidelines incarceration | 0–6 months | 36–60 months imposed | Vacated; remanded |
| People v. Velasquez (after remand) | Continued support for elevated punishment | 0–6 months | Time served + additional conditions | Vacated again; resentencing ordered before a different judge |
| People v. Podbevsek | 60–90 months | 5–28 months | 60–90 months imposed | Upward-departure appeal |
| People v. Huggins | 120–360 months | 9–46 / 10–46 months | Extreme upward departure; prosecutor’s rationale adopted | Vacated; remanded |
| People v. Arizola | 180-month minimum | 19–76 months | 240–480 months + consecutive felony-firearm | Vacated; remanded |
| People v. Evans | Above-guidelines request | 5–34 months | 120-month minimum (later reduced) | Sentence affirmed; financial components vacated |
| People v. McClure | Not guideline-based | N/A | Unauthorized blanket no-contact condition | Condition invalid; remanded |
| People v. Williams | 60–90 months despite correct grid | Guidelines topped well below time imposed | OV miscalculations; post-plea speech relied upon; major upward departure | Appeal pending; posture favors vacate/remand |
| People v. Handley | Aggressive incarceration ask | Lower guideline range | Over-resentencing after prior correction | Remanded |
| People v. Curry (contrast) | More restrained ask | Jail/probation permissible | Sentence near guideline minimum | No appellate issue |
| Vehicular death case (female defendant) | Prison available | Guidelines allow incarceration | Minimal jail imposed | No appellate issue (yet) |
What This Table Shows, Plainly
- The prosecutor repeatedly asks for sentences well above the guideline range, even when the grid is correctly scored and appellate courts have already rejected similar approaches.
- Schipper repeatedly accepts or amplifies those asks, treating guidelines as obstacles rather than guardrails.
- Appellate courts repeatedly vacate or remand for:
- proportionality failures,
- guideline displacement,
- improper considerations,
- or unauthorized conditions.
- The behavior persists across years and cases, rather than correcting after remand.
- Comparative cases show stark inconsistency, undermining any claim of stable sentencing philosophy.
Broken Judicial Canons
Judicial conduct is governed by canons designed to preserve impartiality, proportionality, and public confidence in the courts. When those canons are treated as aspirational rather than binding, sentencing discretion becomes arbitrary power.
Across the cases outlined above, several core judicial canons appear repeatedly strained or breached:
Impartiality and independence.
A judge must remain independent not only from public pressure, but from prosecutorial influence. When a court consistently adopts the prosecution’s most extreme sentencing positions, even after appellate rejection, the appearance of independence erodes. Independence is not preserved by insisting on authority; it is preserved by exercising judgment distinct from the advocate before the bench.
Proportionality and restraint.
Judicial canons require sentences to be proportionate to both the offense and the offender. Extreme upward departures that dwarf guideline ranges, particularly in nonviolent or low-guideline cases, reflect a breakdown in restraint. Discretion exists to individualize justice, not to discard the sentencing framework altogether.
Respect for the rule of law.
Guidelines, appellate precedent, and remand instructions are not optional. When a court reimposes substantially similar outcomes after remand, or shifts rationale without correcting underlying proportionality errors, it signals disregard for hierarchical judicial authority. That conduct weakens the rule of law more than any single sentence length ever could.
Avoidance of bias and improper considerations.
Judicial canons prohibit reliance on factors that punish a defendant for exercising rights, expressing remorse imperfectly, or failing to perform contrition to a subjective standard. Patterns showing reliance on post-plea speech, demeanor judgments, or moralized narratives raise serious canon concerns, even where bias is not overtly stated.
Public confidence in the judiciary.
Perhaps most critically, the canons exist to protect legitimacy. When appellate courts repeatedly vacate or correct a judge’s sentences for the same reasons, public confidence is not harmed by scrutiny; it is harmed by repetition. Predictable error is no longer error. It becomes institutional behavior.
Taken together, these cases do not describe isolated mistakes. They describe a judicial posture that treats canons as flexible suggestions rather than enforceable standards. That posture imposes costs not only on defendants, but on families, counties, appellate courts, and public trust itself.
An Emerging Pattern: Women Sentenced Less Harshly
This case also raises a question the justice system rarely examines openly:
whether sentencing outcomes differ sharply based on gender.
Across multiple Barry County cases presided over by the same judge, an observable pattern emerges:
- Female defendants receive:
- Short jail terms
- Emphasis on youth, family ties, and future potential
- Language of restraint and mercy
- Male defendants, including those convicted of nonviolent offenses, receive:
- Multi-year incarceration
- Dismissal of guideline ranges as “flawed”
- Moralized and speculative sentencing rhetoric
- Repeated appellate reversals for excessive departures
This post does not assert intent or bias. It notes outcomes.
And outcomes matter.
Sentencing guidelines exist precisely to limit the influence of unconscious disparity. When they are applied strictly in some cases and disregarded in others, disparities re-enter through the side door.
Why This Cannot Be Ignored
If discretion consistently breaks in one direction:
- leniency for some,
- severity for others,
then the problem is not discretion itself; it is unexamined discretion. Courts have a duty not only to sentence lawfully, but to sentence even-handedly.
The Incoherence Problem
This case matters not because it is lenient, but because it exposes how selectively sentencing discipline is applied in Schipper’s courtroom.
In other cases, Schipper has:
- Dismissed guideline ranges as “flawed”
- Imposed multi-year incarceration for nonviolent conduct
- Relied on moral speculation and policy disagreement to justify upward departures
- Been repeatedly reversed or remanded by appellate courts for failing to justify the extent of punishment
Yet here, restraint suddenly appears.
Guidelines matter.
Mitigation matters.
Proportionality matters.
…Until they don’t.
This Is Not About Being “Tough” or “Soft”
Courts are not supposed to sentence based on how they’re feeling that day. They are supposed to:
- Apply structured frameworks
- Explain departures clearly
- Treat harm consistently across cases
- And recognize that discretion without discipline becomes arbitrariness
When a death receives measured restraint, but nonviolent defendants receive years of incarceration justified by rhetoric, the system is no longer rational.
It is entirely reactive.
Why This Matters
Sentencing is one of the most powerful acts the state performs.
When its logic changes case by case, family by family, defendant by defendant, the harm is not just unequal punishment.
It is system-generated trauma paid for by Michigan taxpayers.
People do not lose faith in the justice system because it is imperfect.
They lose faith because it is unpredictable.
The Question Courts Must Answer
If guidelines, mitigation, and proportionality can suddenly matter in a fatal case, then they were never irrelevant in the others.
The public deserves to know from Judge Michael Schipper, is this:
- When do the rules apply?
- When do they not?
- And who gets to decide?
Because justice that cannot explain itself is not justice at all.
