The Colorado Supreme Court signaled last month that it may intervene in a second case questioning whether municipalities can impose tougher sentences than state law does for identical criminal conduct.

At least four of the seven justices must agree to hear a case that is appealed directly to the Supreme Court without going to the Court of Appeals first.

Colorado’s constitution grants home rule municipalities the right to impose penalties for violations of their charters or ordinances. The result, however, has been the potential for substantially greater fines or jail time for defendants charged in municipal court compared with those who happen to be charged in state court for the same offense.

Last year, the justices faced that exact scenario involving a pair of defendants in Rifle. Two people received a summons for a theft charge under the municipal code. The city’s maximum jail time for the offense was 18 times longer than if the defendants had been charged under Colorado’s theft statute.

The defendants asked the Supreme Court to declare Rifle’s code unconstitutional to the extent it punished an identical offense more harshly. However, after the justices ordered Rifle to respond, the city council backed down and begrudgingly changed its code. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Several months later, a woman was charged with theft in Westminster Municipal Court. Compared with the identical state offense, she would face a maximum municipal fine nine times greater and jail time 36 times longer than Colorado law imposed.

A judge declined to find the ordinance unconstitutional, believing a locality’s sentencing scheme does not have to be consistent with the state’s. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court and in October, the justices ordered Westminster to respond to the petition.

The latest appeal out of Aurora raises the same legal questions under largely similar circumstances.

Law enforcement charged Danielle Ashley Simons with trespass and motor vehicle trespass under the city code. Had she been prosecuted in state court and found guilty, the maximum period of incarceration would have been 120 days and a $750 fine for the more serious motor vehicle offense, and a lesser penalty for ordinary trespass.

Instead, she faced up to 364 days in jail and $2,650 for both municipal offenses.

Simons moved to dismiss the charges, arguing state law preempted Aurora’s municipal ordinance and that the disparate treatment violated the constitutional principle of equal protection of the laws.

Municipal Court Judge Shelby L. Fyles denied the motion, noting no court had ever invalidated an Aurora ordinance because of disparate sentencing. She also observed state law generally permits municipalities to impose the same fines and jail time Aurora has adopted.

“Aurora, as a home-rule municipality, has the right to determine penalties for violations that occur within the city, even for offenses with overlapping state regulation, so long as no conflict exists. A discrepancy in sentencing principles, alone, does not create a conflict requiring preemption,” Fyles wrote, adding Simons’ argument would require all defendants to be charged in state court even if their alleged offenses also violated city ordinance.

Simons appealed directly to the Supreme Court, asking it to address the same issues raised in the Westminster case or, alternatively, to halt her municipal prosecution until it decided the Westminster appeal.

On Nov. 25, the court ordered Aurora to respond to Simons’ arguments. It also invited the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Criminal Defense Bar to submit their thoughts.

The case is People v. Simons.