The Verdict: On January 30, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a significant remand in People v. Scott Michael Lupu, ordering the Court of Appeals to review Judge Michael Schipper’s upward departure from sentencing guidelines. This marks the second time in three months the high court has intervened regarding Schipper’s sentencing practices, signaling increased scrutiny over judicial discretion and PSIR accuracy in Barry County.
On January 30, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a narrowly tailored but consequential order in People v. Scott Michael Lupu, remanding key sentencing issues back to the Court of Appeals.
Rather than granting full leave to appeal, the Court invoked MCR 7.305(I)(1) and ordered further review as on leave granted for two specific areas:
- Issues I–IV: The trial court’s upward departure from the sentencing guidelines
- Issues VII–IX: Errors and deficiencies in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSIR)
All remaining issues were denied. But this was not a broad reopening of the case. It was something much more deliberate. And it’s directly connected to Barry County, Michigan Judge Michael Schipper’s chronic upward departures and defiance of Court of Appeals orders.
Why This Type of Remand Matters
A remand “as on leave granted” is not a courtesy. It signals that the Court believes the issues identified deserve full appellate scrutiny, even if the rest of the case does not.
In practical terms, this means the Court of Appeals must now take a hard look at:
- Whether the upward departure was supported by objective and verifiable facts
- Whether the sentencing court articulated case-specific reasons, rather than relying on narrative or boilerplate
- Whether the PSIR itself improperly shaped or inflated the sentence
The Supreme Court did not say the sentence was unlawful, but it made clear that it was not persuaded the sentencing record was sound.
And that distinction matters.
The Schipper Context
Judge Michael Schipper has drawn increasing scrutiny in appellate litigation for sentencing practices that rely heavily on discretionary departures and expansive narrative framing.
This order does not name a pattern; courts rarely do. But by remanding both the upward departure and the PSIR that supported it, the Supreme Court effectively questioned the structural integrity of the sentencing process itself.
Upward departures are meant to be:
- Exceptional
- Narrowly justified
- Anchored in facts already captured by the guidelines
When PSIR narratives or generalized concerns become substitutes for individualized findings, appellate intervention becomes inevitable.
This remand reflects that pressure point. The timeframe also puts itself squarely in the same orbit of cases where the prosecutor’s office intentionally asked for sentences outside of the guidelines, and Schipper consistently honored their requests.
Schipper’s Resistance to Guidelines
However, Judge Schipper has also conducted astonishingly low downward departures, creating massive disproportionality in sentencing. In once case, he sentenced a 19-year-old woman to 30 days in jail for her part in an accident that resulted in the death of an elderly woman.
Comparatively, in one non-violent case where Schipper sentenced someone outside of guidelines, that person is now 16 months over their maximum guidelines of 20 months. Meaning, in the same court, that person has served 16 times the total sentence of a person who caused a death.
Under Michigan Principle of Proportionality, (People v. Milbourn), a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense. If the court believes 30 days is sufficient for a crime that took a human life, it is legally and logically impossible to justify holding someone for 480+ days for a nonviolent property crime.
This proves Schipper’s upward departures are not even based on a consistent legal standard; they are entirely arbitrary and based on Schipper’s whims and nothing more.
Second Remand in Three Months
This remand carries broader significance, because it marks the second time in roughly three months that the Michigan Supreme Court has been required to intervene and send sentencing issues created by Michael Schipper back to the Michigan Court of Appeals for reconsideration.
While any single remand can be explained as case-specific, repeated corrective action over a short period signals institutional concern with reliability, not outcome. Supreme courts rarely step in to recalibrate sentencing review unless they perceive recurring analytical or procedural deficiencies that lower courts have failed to correct on their own. In that context, the frequency and focus of these remands matter.
This is yet another black eye for Judge Schipper, even though it is a quiet one.
How FitBench Would Have Flagged This
FitBench is designed to surface patterns like this before they harden into outcomes. Repeated procedural errors, reliance on speculative reasoning, and failures to accurately calculate restitution would have triggered multiple early alerts across FitBench’s Legal Accuracy, Procedural Compliance, and Cognitive Load indicators.
Individually, each error might be framed as harmless or correctable. In combination, they signal a breakdown in judicial capacity that warrants intervention. FitBench does not judge intent. It measures strain, drift, and repeat deviation from baseline judicial performance, precisely to catch cases where process failure quietly compounds into substantive harm, as it has done year after year in Schipper’s courtroom.
Read Judge Schipper’s FitBench analysis here.
What Happens Next
The Court of Appeals must now reconsider the remanded issues under a heightened lens. That includes:
- A fresh evaluation of whether the departure reasons were legally sufficient
- Scrutiny of whether PSIR errors materially influenced sentencing
- Less tolerance for post-hoc rationalizations
This does not guarantee resentencing, but it does remove the assumption that the sentence will be rubber-stamped.
Why This Case Matters
This order quietly reinforces a core principle that often erodes in practice:
Sentencing discretion is not unlimited.
- Guidelines still matter.
- PSIRs are not sentencing weapons.
- And appellate courts are not obligated to defer when the record is thin.
For defendants, advocates, and trial courts alike, this remand is a reminder that upward departures carry risk. When they are not meticulously justified, they invite review. And sometimes, correction.
Applicable Court Rule
- Michigan Court Rule 7.305(I)(1)
Authorizes the Supreme Court to remand issues for consideration as on leave granted without full briefing.
Pulling It All Together
This is how institutional course correction actually happens.
Not with sweeping opinions.
But with precise remands that force lower courts to slow down and show their work.
Watch the sentencing record.
Watch the PSIR.
And watch how often “discretion” quietly shrinks when appellate light gets involved.
Article FAQs:
The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a remand regarding Judge Michael Schipper’s handling of specific procedural elements in People v. Scott Michael Lupu. This order requires a re-evaluation of sentencing upward departure and accuracy in the Presentencing Investigation Report (PSIR), ensuring that the defendant’s rights to due process are fully upheld according to state law.
Michael Schipper is a circuit court judge in Michigan, known for presiding over cases in Barry County. His rulings have recently come under scrutiny in appellate filings, leading to significant Supreme Court remands that clarify judicial boundaries in Michigan.
A remand from the Michigan Supreme Court is a directive for a lower court to reconsider its decision. This is a critical win for defendants as it often identifies a legal error or a missed step in the original trial, potentially leading to reduced sentences or new hearings.
As of January 2026, this is the second time in approximately three months that the Michigan Supreme Court has required a reconsideration of sentencing issues created by Judge Michael Schipper. Last year, he experienced a similar string of remands at the Court of Appeals.
