The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that municipalities may not subject defendants to sentences that are harsher under their own ordinances than for identical offenses under state law.

In the opinion, Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez noted localities are free to prosecute defendants in municipal court for crimes that could also be prosecuted in state court, but they cannot create penalties that conflict with Colorado law.

“In so doing, the municipal penalty materially impedes the state’s interest in ensuring that maximum penalties for such conduct are consistent and uniform across Colorado,” she wrote. “Thus, the municipal provisions create an operational conflict with state law.”

In a rare pair of appeals taken directly from municipal court, the justices heard about an unusual twist in the relationship between state and municipal courts. Thanks to 2021 legislation that revised and standardized the penalties for misdemeanors and petty offenses under state law, many localities suddenly found themselves with higher sentences on the books for analogous crimes prosecuted in municipal court.

Earlier this year, the legislature attempted to clarify that local governments could not impose more severe sentences for “comparable” offenses under state law. However, on May 16, Gov. Jared Polis vetoed the legislation and suggested the Supreme Court should weigh in first.

In the cases before the Supreme Court, Aleah Michelle Camp was charged in Westminster Municipal Court with theft. 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.

Camp challenged the legality of Westminster’s ordinance, but the prosecution argued that the city had the inherent authority to penalize theft more harshly.

“Theft in Westminster happens in Westminster. Theft in Westminster affects Westminster retailers. When Westminster retailers are affected, they have trouble doing business in Westminster,” the city attorney’s office argued. “So, it is a local concern to address that criminal behavior.”

While Camp’s case was pending, Aurora 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 crimes.

After municipal court judges rejected the defendants’ challenges, Camp and Simons turned to the Supreme Court. Both cases, which presented identical legal issues, attracted numerous outside organizations.

The Colorado Municipal League defended municipal courts’ ability to relieve state courts of certain criminal matters and argued that uniformity in sentencing “is not a virtue.” Moreover, defendants should not be “surprised” when they commit an offense in a jurisdiction that has chosen to punish the conduct more harshly, the league argued.

The Denver District Attorney’s Office and Denver City Attorney’s Office also weighed in, noting there were almost 13,500 cases prosecuted in Denver’s municipal court in 2024. The offices argued the state’s lower penalties would “significantly limit” the city’s ability to enforce its own ordinances.

The municipal public defender offices for Denver and Aurora, meanwhile, challenged that argument. They said municipal defendants have a greater incentive to plead guilty due to the longer jail time, and officers can arbitrarily choose to initiate a case in state or municipal court when the alleged offense is identical at each level.

The defendants asked the Supreme Court to consider two reasons why they could not be punished more harshly than they would be in state court.

First, they argued Colorado courts have long recognized that the right to equal protection of the laws is violated when there are different punishments for the same criminal violation. Second, Colorado’s interest in eliminating sentencing disparities, as expressed through the 2021 sentencing reform bill, preempts localities’ ability to impose higher penalties.

Márquez, at oral arguments, signaled that the second contention made the stronger case against disparate punishments.

“Where municipal provisions authorize punishments in excess of those specific statute caps, that’s what creates the operational conflict,” she said. “It is both authorizing what state law forbids and impedes the state’s interest in uniformity for sentencing for those types of offenses.”

The court ultimately adopted that reasoning, siding with Camp and Simons.

The cases are People v. Camp and People v. Simons.