Judge takes heat for hammering repeat drunk driver

[Pelican Press 0]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Judge takes heat for hammering repeat drunk driver

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — For the third time in recent months, a Barry County judge has gotten a rap across the knuckles from the Michigan Court of Appeals for the way he sentences criminals — in this case, a repeat drunk driver.

Barry County Circuit Court Judge Michael L. Schipper gave the repeat offender a prison sentence when guidelines called for nominal jail time, if any.

Mario Javier Velasquez “is a danger to society” and “unwilling or unable to stop drinking,” the judge said in sending Velasquez to prison for three to five years.

The Court of Appeals tossed the sentence and told Schipper to try again.

The judge did, resentencing Velasquez to 396 days with credit for time served, to be followed by a two-year term of home detention.

Once again, the Court of Appeals stepped in, last week rejecting the sentence and sending the case to a different judge.

This is not unfamiliar territory for Schipper. In September and again in December, cases were sent back to him for resentencing.

In one, he told a convicted killer that he could have no contact with anyone outside of prison “until the day he dies.” The appeals court sent it back, directing Schipper to remove the no-contact condition.

‘No calls, no letters’ order nixed from killer’s sentence

Schipper offered similar terms to a woman convicted of ********* assaulting a minor: no mail, phone, social media or computer access while behind bars. The appeals court responded in December with the same instructions: remove the no-contact condition.

No contact with the outside world: Michigan Court of Appeals rejects judge’s ruling

Schipper

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

for his tough stance on first-time drunk drivers and a crackdown on second-time offenders, saying he was going to “use 30 days in jail as kind of my baseline.”

In 2017, he set bond at $200,000 for a man arrested a dozen times for drunk driving.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

The most recent dust-up involves sentencing of a man who had a blood alcohol content three times above the legal limit. Barry County sheriff’s deputies found Velasquez behind the wheel of a car that was parked with its engine running.

Velasquez, 44, was charged with third-offense drunk driving, a five-year felony.

The minimum sentencing guidelines range was zero to six months in jail. Schipper was having none of it.

“This is a third time drunk driving,” the judge said at sentencing in September 2023. “The defendant was three times the legal limit. He’s had multiple prior opportunities for rehabilitation, for counseling, for probation.

“It’s clear that this defendant is a danger to society,” Schipper continued. “He’s unwilling or unable to stop drinking. Even knowing that more than jail or prison, he could be deported.”

The judge said a three-to-five-year sentence “is clearly proportionate” to the crime.

Lawyers for Velasquez argued the judge’s justifications for the lengthy term “were inadequate” and he did not explain why the sentence was proportionate.

The appeals court agreed and sent the case back for resentencing, instructing the judge to “fully articulate on the record its reasons for departing upward” or to resentence the defendant.

Schipper in September opted for the latter, resentencing Velasquez to 396 days in prison, with credit for time served, to be followed by a two-year term of home detention.

It was again above guidelines. The judge said he was “amazed” that the guidelines ranged from zero to six months.

“The guidelines are clearly man-made and clearly flawed in this instance,” Schipper said. “I think I have the ability to go above guidelines in this case. And the Court of Appeals does not have to like my reasons or agree with my reasons, as long as I give a reason.”

Sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but sentences that depart from guidelines are reviewed for reasonableness.

The Court of Appeals again found the sentence to be “unreasonable and disproportionate.”

It added: “We conclude that remand to a different judge is necessary for resentencing. The trial court has twice now sentenced defendant.”

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

#Judge #takes #heat #hammering #repeat #drunk #driver

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up