When Judges Ignore the Law: Sentencing Guidelines, Upward Departures, and the Danger of Ruling by Public Opinion
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently reversed Judge James P. Lambros of the 50th Circuit Court in Chippewa County after he imposed maximum sentences of 10 to 15 years in two consolidated cases: People v. Titus, a reckless driving causing death prosecution, and People v. Linklater, an OWI causing death prosecution. The reversals are a reminder that even in cases involving tragedy, grief, and public outrage, judges are bound by the law — not by the mood of the moment.
How Sentencing Guidelines Work in Michigan
Michigan's criminal sentencing guidelines are designed to ensure that defendants convicted of similar crimes under similar circumstances receive similar sentences. The guidelines calculate a recommended minimum sentence range based on the defendant's prior record and the specific variables of the offense. On charges like OWI causing death or reckless driving causing death, those variables almost always produce a recommended minimum sentence range of 29 to 57 months.
For years, those guidelines were mandatory. Then, in People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment by requiring judges to impose minimum sentences based on facts not found by a jury. The Lockridge Court resolved the constitutional problem by making the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory.
That was the right legal result. But it opened a door that some judges walked through in the wrong direction.
What an Upward Departure Is, and What It Requires
A sentence that exceeds the recommended guideline range is called an upward departure. Upward departures have always been permissible, but they are not unlimited. A sentencing judge must justify a departure based on objective, articulable facts that are not already accounted for in the guidelines themselves. A sentence must also be reasonable in proportion to the guidelines range, and Michigan's appellate courts have said so repeatedly in the years since Lockridge.
There is also a hard ceiling. Under MCL 769.34(2)(b), a judge cannot impose a minimum sentence that exceeds two-thirds of the statutory maximum. On a charge carrying a 15-year maximum, the highest minimum sentence a judge can legally impose is 10 years. Judge Lambros reached that ceiling in both cases.
What Went Wrong in Titus and Linklater
In Titus, the defendant crashed his semi-truck into multiple vehicles while scrolling through his Facebook feed, causing a death and several serious injuries. In Linklater, the defendant became intoxicated, crossed the center line, and struck an oncoming vehicle, killing the driver and seriously injuring the passenger. Both defendants were first-time offenders. Both expressed remorse and apologized at sentencing.
Judge Lambros departed from the 29 to 57 month guideline range in both cases and imposed the maximum possible minimum sentence of 10 years. He justified the departure by pointing to the death of the victim, the serious injuries to others, the reckless nature of the driving in Titus, and the intoxication in Linklater.
The problem is that none of those factors are aggravating circumstances in any legally meaningful sense. They are elements of the offenses themselves. The death of a victim is what transforms a traffic offense into a felony in the first place. The reckless driving is what the charge in Titus was built upon. The intoxication is what defined Linklater's charge. The sentencing guidelines already account for these facts. You cannot justify a departure from the guidelines by pointing to the very conduct that produced the guidelines range.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed both sentences accordingly.
Judges Are Supposed to Be Men and Women of Fortitude
It is not hard to see what likely happened in these cases. Sentencing hearings in cases involving death attract family members, friends, and sometimes members of the press. Victims speak. Communities grieve. The pressure on a judge in that room is real and human. In the Linklater case, a former classmate of the victim told local news that she thought the sentence should have been even longer than what Judge Lambros imposed — and Judge Lambros had already given the maximum he was legally permitted to give.
The United States Supreme Court has observed that judges are supposed to be people of fortitude, resistant to the winds of public opinion. Craig v. Harney, 331 US 367 (1947). That is not a criticism of compassion for victims. It is a recognition that the moment a judge begins sentencing based on public outcry rather than law, the entire framework of equal justice collapses.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees each of us equal protection of the laws. That guarantee means very little if two defendants convicted of the same offense under nearly identical circumstances receive wildly different sentences because one judge felt more political pressure than another.
The Hypocrisy We Do Not Like to Acknowledge
Public calls for harsher sentences are easy to make in the abstract. They are considerably harder to sustain when the defendant is you, or your child, or someone you love.
We already operate the largest prison system in the world. The United States holds approximately five percent of the global population but houses roughly twenty-five percent of the world's incarcerated individuals. Michigan alone allocates over two billion dollars annually to the Department of Corrections, a figure that has increased by 219 percent since 1979. During that same period, spending on education increased by only 18 percent.
Harsh sentences are politically popular. They are also expensive, and the people who demand them are rarely the ones who expect to pay for them — financially or personally.
I am not arguing that OWI causing death is a minor offense. It is not. Neither is reckless driving causing death. Both are serious felonies, and Michigan law already treats them as such. What I am arguing is that the appropriate response to serious crimes is the application of the law as written — not a sentence designed to satisfy the loudest voices in the room. If Michigan's citizens believe the current penalties are too lenient, the Legislature is the right place to address that. Changing the law through the democratic process, with the understanding that we are all equally subject to it, is how a just society operates.
What we cannot afford — legally or morally — are judges who sentence based on passion, prejudice, or the results of an informal public opinion poll conducted in a crowded courtroom.
