Michigan Court of Appeals Accepts Amicus Briefs in Two Barry County Sentencing Appeals Before Judge Schipper

What the Court of Appeals Ordered

The two orders are short and read the same. Each grants the motion to file an amicus curiae brief on my behalf, and each states that the brief received on September 14, 2026 is “accepted for filing.” Chief Clerk Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. certified both as true copies on September 29.

Acceptance puts my briefs in front of the Court of Appeals panels that will decide the two appeals. Neither order sets argument or decision dates, and both appeals remain pending.

Two Sentences, One Judge

Mark Alan Arizola was sentenced to a minimum of 240 to 480 months against a scored guideline range of 19 to 76 months, a departure more than three times the top of the range. The Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing. On remand, the trial court departed substantially again. Arizola, represented by the State Appellate Defender Office, asks the Court of Appeals to review the original sentence and the trial court’s compliance with the remand. The Barry County Prosecutor’s Office filed a “Prosecutor Advisory, No Brief” instead of responding on the merits.

Scott Michael Lupu’s case reached the Court of Appeals by a different route. On January 30, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court returned it to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted of the upward-departure issues identified as Issues I through IV and the presentence investigation report issues identified as Issues VII through IX. That order directs merits review of whether the sentencing explanation meets Michigan’s proportionality standard and whether disputed information in the report required findings and correction.

What My Arizola Brief Puts Before the Court

My Arizola brief asks the Court of Appeals to weigh the sentence against a documented institutional record instead of treating it as an isolated event. It offers four facts.

The first is a pattern under the same judge: multiple upward departures later found unlawful on appeal, two Michigan Supreme Court remands within a three month span in late 2025 and early 2026, and at least one instance in which the Court of Appeals restricted the judge’s further involvement in a resentencing.

The second is a verified instance in which a motion filed at the 56B District Court was stamped received, never entered on the Register of Actions, and returned with the stamp obscured by correction fluid. The brief describes that matter as under a pending State Court Administrative Office investigation and argues it bears on how much independent scrutiny the Court of Appeals should give the trial court’s own account of the record.

The third is a case in which the prosecution told the Michigan Supreme Court a filing was served on one date while the docket showed it was not mailed until nearly a month later. The incarcerated defendant received it at neither date, which the brief says an SCAO investigation later confirmed. The brief argues the Court should require independent verification that Arizola actually receives notice of further proceedings instead of accepting a certificate of service at face value.

The fourth is that the Barry County Board of Commissioners retained outside counsel in May 2023 to respond to a grievance against the Prosecuting Attorney, and received further notice at a February 2026 public meeting alleging Brady and Giglio violations connected to the same judge. The brief argues this establishes the governing body’s actual knowledge and bears on whether reassignment is warranted on remand.

What My Lupu Brief Argues

My Lupu brief starts from the standard. Advisory guidelines still require meaningful consideration, and under People v. Lockridge, People v. Steanhouse, and People v. Dixon-Bey, a departure requires an individualized explanation connecting the offense and the offender to the sentence chosen. A judge’s general disagreement with sentencing policy cannot stand in for that analysis.

On the presentence report, the brief separates a probation officer’s recommended disposition from the scored guidelines range and from the right to accurate sentencing information. A court may reject a recommendation, but it must resolve material accuracy challenges under the governing rules. The brief draws on my February 2023 reporting on Barry County presentence reports, arguing that the report must serve a meaningful role in sentencing instead of becoming paperwork disconnected from the decision.

On relief, the brief points to the Court of Appeals’ January 10, 2025 unpublished decision in People v. Velasquez (No. 368254). There, the court found a renewed departure disproportionate after an earlier remand and ordered resentencing before a different judge. A copy of the opinion accompanies the brief, and it supplies procedural history concerning the same judge.

The brief also addresses my reporting on Judicial Tenure Commission proceedings, separating a reported investigation from staff review of a separate request and from any disciplinary finding. And in the brief, I state that after four years writing about Schipper’s courtroom, I do not believe he is fit to serve. That is my assessment as a journalist and observer. The relief Lupu seeks stays specific to his case: resentencing if reversible error is established, correction of the report where required, and consideration of reassignment under the governing factors.

The Two Briefs Side by Side

What Comes Next

With the briefs accepted, the Court of Appeals panels assigned to each appeal will have them alongside the parties’ filings. The orders do not say when either case will be argued or decided. Both briefs are available as downloadable PDFs in the Clutch Justice Amicus Brief Library, which also lists my other pending amicus filings and the reporting each brief draws on.