Key Takeaways
- A remand from the Michigan Supreme Court sends a case back to a lower court for further proceedings after identifying issues.
- Winning a remand significantly impacted the author’s understanding of the judicial system and the importance of procedural precision.
- Remands matter for issue preservation, record discipline, and institutional correction in appellate litigation.
- Clear arguments and clean records motivate institutions to change, rather than outrage or theatrics.
- Understanding appellate pathways is crucial for court modernization and access to justice discussions.
Quick FAQs
A remand occurs when the Michigan Supreme Court sends a case back to a lower court for further proceedings, often after identifying legal or procedural issues requiring reconsideration.
The Michigan Supreme Court accepts a small percentage of applications for leave to appeal. A remand after denial at the Michigan Court of Appeals is procedurally significant.
About a year and a half ago, I helped advance a criminal appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. It is my favorite and most treasured accomplishment.
The Michigan Court of Appeals had previously declined relief.
We petitioned the Michigan Supreme Court, and they ultimately granted review and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.
I don’t share that to posture. I share it because it changed how I understand courts entirely as a non-attorney.
Appellate litigation is not about theatrics. It is about record discipline, issue preservation, procedural timing, and strategic framing. It is about understanding how institutional levers actually move.
Most people experience the judicial system as observers. But for me, I have had an incredibly unique experience. I have personally experienced it as:
- A litigant navigating procedural complexity
- A researcher analyzing sentencing policy
- A systems operator building independent oversight infrastructure
- A writer translating court doctrine into public-facing analysis
I’d like to think that vantage point matters.
When we talk about court modernization, access to justice, judicial ethics, or transparency, those are not abstract policy conversations to me. They are structural realities I have navigated firsthand.
I believe state courts are capable of reform without sacrificing independence. I believe transparency strengthens legitimacy. And I believe procedural rigor and humane policy are not opposites.
Winning a remand at the Michigan Supreme Court level taught me something important: institutions move when arguments are clear, records are clean, and persistence outlasts resistance.
That lesson now shapes how I approach everything from court oversight analysis to systems design and public communication. We do not improve courts by shouting at them. We improve them by understanding how they function and then building better pathways.
Not every case ends when the Court of Appeals says no. Sometimes, the real work begins there.
Procedural Posture
Initial Denial at the Court of Appeals
On July 14, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied the appeal. And that denial was devastating. We had already been tied up in the Michigan legal system for a year and a half by then.
After months of briefing and waiting, the matter appeared closed. I remember the physical feeling of it; the kind of shock that makes your stomach drop. For many litigants, that is where the process ends.
Compounding the blow, appointed appellate counsel through the Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System (MAACS) concluded representation at that stage. Because incarcerated individuals are not entitled to court-appointed counsel for applications to the Michigan Supreme Court, the responsibility for pursuing further review fell entirely to us.
There would be no additional appointed briefing. No oral argument preparation team. No institutional safety net.
There was only the record.
And the law.
Application to the Michigan Supreme Court
We began again.
The work shifted from reaction to precision. Every argument was revisited. Every sentencing departure was reanalyzed. Every constitutional question was reframed for discretionary review. We added and revised critical points the MAACs attorney had missed entirely.
Because supreme court applications are not about volume — they are about clarity.
In September 2024, after weeks of research and careful drafting, the application for leave to appeal was submitted.
Then came the waiting.
Months passed. Silence is painful, but common at this stage. Supreme courts receive thousands of applications annually and grant review in only a small fraction of cases.
But then, out of nowhere, movement.
The Court ordered the prosecutor to respond to the application. That order signaled the case had survived preliminary screening and warranted further consideration.
During this period, I also identified discrepancies in proof of service related to the prosecutor’s reply. I had to initiate a State Court Appellate Office investigation for answers. There was never a moment to breathe; the record required vigilance at every step.
And then, on November 21, 2025, the order appeared on the docket.
Remand as Leave Granted
Pursuant to MCR 7.305(I)(1)1, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal outright, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
In practical terms, that meant the highest court in the state had directed renewed appellate review after prior denial. And we made that happen.
It was not spectacle nor celebration; it was institutional correction.
The moment was surreal; after months of procedural uncertainty, the system had moved.
Why Remands Matter: Challenging Unconstitutional Upward Departures
Remands are not symbolic victories. They are structural interventions.
In this case, the remand centered on the constitutionality and legal sufficiency of upward sentencing departures imposed by Barry County Judge Michael Schipper. So when people position me as an expert on Judge Schipper, they really aren’t kidding. I have reviewed every facet of his courtroom data and case law. Under Michigan sentencing law, a trial court may depart upward from the sentencing guidelines only when it articulates substantial and compelling reasons grounded in the record and consistent with constitutional due process principles. Having an axe to grind with Michigan Legislature is not enough.
When those departures are inadequately supported, procedurally defective, or constitutionally infirm, appellate correction is not discretionary courtesy. It is required.
A remand signals that something in the lower court’s reasoning warrants renewed scrutiny.
Issue Preservation
Appellate courts do not retry cases. They review preserved legal error.
Challenging upward departures requires clear articulation of constitutional grounds and preservation of the record for review. Without preservation, even meritorious constitutional arguments can be procedurally barred.
The remand demonstrates that the issues were not only raised, but raised in a manner sufficient to compel supreme court attention.
Record Discipline
Upward departures live or die on the record.
If a sentencing court relies on factors already accounted for in the guidelines, speculates beyond established facts, or fails to adequately justify the extent of departure, those deficiencies must be documented clearly and contemporaneously.
Record discipline means:
- Transcripts reflect objections
- Departure rationales are analyzed point by point
- Constitutional standards are explicitly invoked
Appellate review depends entirely on what is preserved below. A remand affirms that the record contained sufficient grounds for reconsideration.
Strategic Framing
Appellate courts are not persuaded by volume. They are persuaded by clarity.
The challenge was not framed as disagreement with a sentence. It was framed as a constitutional and statutory error regarding the lawful boundaries of judicial discretion.
Upward departures implicate:
- Separation of powers
- Proportionality
- Due process protections
Strategic framing places the issue within the court’s institutional responsibility, rather than personal grievance.
Institutional Correction
A remand is a mechanism of institutional self-correction.
Trial courts possess discretion. Appellate courts define its limits.
When a supreme court intervenes after intermediate denial, it reinforces that sentencing discretion is not unreviewable authority. It exists within statutory and constitutional boundaries.
Remands protect more than a single litigant. They reinforce the rule that departures must be justified, proportionate, and legally sound.
They preserve the integrity of the sentencing framework itself.
The Structural Lesson
On January 12, 2023, I made a promise. Not just to myself, but in that courtroom.
I promised that what happened there — the upward departures, the disregard for constitutional limits, the consequences imposed without lawful justification — would not simply dissolve into silence.
At the time, I did not know what accountability would look like or if it would ever actually arrive. I only knew that I would pursue it responsibly, within the bounds of the law, and through the very institutions that had failed us.
That promise was never about revenge; it was about integrity.
It was about insisting that judicial authority carries constitutional limits. It was about protecting my family from harm rooted not in lawful discretion, but in error. And it was about ensuring that when discretion crosses into overreach, the record reflects it.
Over time, the path became clear. Courts do not respond to outrage; they respond to clarity. Appellate systems are not moved by emotion. They are moved by procedural precision, preserved objections, disciplined records, and arguments framed within the institutional responsibilities of the judiciary.
Accountability, in this context, is not loud. It is structured.
And when done correctly, it works.
The Honor and the Surreal Weight of Appellate Impact
It is a tremendous professional honor to have work rise to the level of consideration by the Michigan Supreme Court. Some attorneys spend years working in the field and never get there. The Court receives over 2,000 applications for leave to appeal each year, yet only a small fraction of those applications are granted review.
For most attorneys, appellate litigation itself is rare, and appellate success, especially at the state supreme court level, is rarer still. In criminal practice, conventional estimates suggest that only about 2–3 % of criminal conviction appeals result in reversal or relief in the intermediate or supreme appellate courts. Many competent attorneys never see their briefs generate published opinions or remands in their entire careers.
That reality as a non-attorney makes the experience both humbling and surreal.
Case law is not abstract. It is built from real lives, real records, and real procedural fights. To recognize that something you worked on may someday be read not as a story but as precedent is a strange kind of gravity.
It is both an honor and a reminder of how much responsibility lives inside the appellate process.
What This Experience Taught Me About Court Reform
Understanding how appellate pathways function is not academic trivia. It is foundational to meaningful court reform.
Before this experience, I believed deeply in modernization, access to justice, and judicial accountability as policy goals. After navigating the appellate process firsthand, I understand something more specific: reform cannot succeed unless it respects how courts actually move.
Appellate systems are not driven by passion. They are driven by preservation, procedure, and precision. If objections are not made clearly, they vanish. If records are not disciplined, arguments collapse. If statutory and constitutional boundaries are not articulated in the language courts recognize, even legitimate grievances dissolve.
That realization reshaped how I think about reform.
Modernization is not just technology upgrades. It is clarity in process. Access to justice is not just representation. It is ensuring individuals understand procedural leverage points before it is too late.
Accountability is not noise. It is documentation.
The appellate process revealed something fundamental: institutions are capable of correction, but only when the record compels them to act. Reform, therefore, must equip people with the tools to build those records.
Court systems do not change because they are criticized. They change because the law requires them to. And if we want stronger, more legitimate courts, we must understand the machinery well enough to engage it precisely.
That lesson now shapes everything I build.
Sources
- MCR 7.305(I)(1), Possible Court Actions. The Court may grant or deny the application for leave to appeal, enter a final decision, direct argument on the application, or issue a peremptory order. The clerk shall issue the order entered and provide either a paper copy or access to an electronic version to each party and to the Court of Appeals clerk. ↩︎
