Skip to main content
File #: Ordinance 02-2026    Name:
Type: Ordinance Status: Public Hearing
File created: 12/26/2025 In control: City Council
On agenda: 1/6/2026 Final action:
Title: Ordinance 02-2026: An emergency ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 1 Administrative, Chapter 4 General Penalty of the Littleton City Code regarding maximum sentencing provisions for city ordinance violations
Sponsors: City Council
Attachments: 1. 1. Ordinance No. 02-2026, 2. 2. Presentation_Ord. 02-2026
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

Agenda Date: 01/06/2026

 

Subject:

Title

Ordinance 02-2026: An emergency ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 1 Administrative, Chapter 4 General Penalty of the Littleton City Code regarding maximum sentencing provisions for city ordinance violations

Body

 

From:

James L. Becklenberg, City Manager

Prepared by:

Reid Betzing, City Attorney

Presentations:

Reid Betzing, City Attorney

 

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that our current City Code aligns with state law pursuant to a recent finding by the Colorado Supreme Court.

 

LONG-TERM OUTCOME(S) SERVED:

High-Quality Governance

 

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

Since 1902, Section 6 of Article XX of the Colorado Constitution has given authority to home-rule municipalities over the creation of their municipal courts as well as the imposition of penalties for ordinance violations.  Additionally, home-rule municipalities have long been afforded the ability to legislate and enforce in areas that are of local concern. 

 

When matters are of purely local concern, home-rule municipalities govern over state law.  When matters are of statewide concern, state law governs over home-rule municipalities.  When matters are of a mix of both local and statewide concern, then home-rule municipalities may still legislate in that area so long as it does not conflict with state law.  If it does conflict with state law, then state law controls.

 

C.R.S. § 13-10-113 sets the maximum penalty that a Municipal Court can sentence an individual to  up to 364 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,650.  In accordance, Littleton City Code 1-4-1, General Penalty also adopts this state law as the maximum sentence that can be imposed for City Ordinance violations.

 

On December 22, 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court released a decision in In re People v. Camp and In re People v. Simons that changes the maximum penalty that Municipal Courts can sentence individuals to for violations of criminal ordinances in which there is a corresponding state charge.

 

In the case of People v. Camp, the Defendant Camp was charged in the Westminster Municipal Court for petty theft for allegedly taking something of value of $500.00 (since amended to $300.00 in value). 

At state law, committing theft where the value of the item involved is more than $300 but less than $1,000 would be considered a class 2 misdemeanor punishable by up to 120 days jail, and/or a $750.00 fine, and if the value of the item involved was less than $300 it would be considered petty theft where the maximum sentence would be 10 days jail and/or a $300 fine. 

 

In the case of People v. Simons, the Defendant was charged in the Aurora Municipal court with motor vehicle trespass and subsequently trespass.   At state law, committing motor vehicle trespass is considered a class 2 misdemeanor punishable by up to 120 days jail, and/or a $750.00 fine and trespass is considered a petty offense punishable by up to 10 days jail and/or a $300.00 fine.

 

Both Defendants challenged the potential punishments arguing that the maximum penalties in the local jurisdictions were far higher than the same conduct at state law and thus were preempted as matters of mixed local and statewide concern or statewide concern.

 

The Colorado Supreme Court found that the regulation and the sentencing of non-felony criminal matters is a matter of mixed local and statewide concern and as a result when there are both state and municipal offense that prohibit the same conduct the maximum sentencing caps at state law preempts the municipalities maximum penalties. As a result of the Court’s ruling, it is necessary to clarify the maximum sentencing ranges in the Littleton City Code.

 

Prior Actions or Discussions

N/A

 

FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff believes it is appropriate to amend the City’s Code to be in compliance with state law, and avoid potential future claims over the City’s sentencing structure.

 

ALTERNATIVES:

The City could choose not to amend the code at this time and address any issues at both advisement and sentencing.

 

PROPOSED MOTION:

Proposed Motion

I move to approve Ordinance 02-2026, an emergency ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 1 Administrative, Chapter 4 General Penalty of the Littleton City Code regarding maximum sentencing provisions for city ordinance violations.