Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sponsors propose rewrite of municipal sentencing to align with Colorado Supreme Court ruling
Summary
Sponsors introduced a draft ordinance to align Denver’s municipal sentencing with a Colorado Supreme Court decision that municipal sentences cannot exceed comparable state sentences; the draft creates tiered offense classes, removes mandatory prostitution fines, and will be sent to Safety Committee for further review.
Councilmembers Gonzalez Gutierrez and Paradis presented a draft ordinance to overhaul Denver’s municipal sentencing scheme, saying the rewrite is necessary to comply with a recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling that municipal sentences cannot exceed comparable state sentences for similar conduct. Sponsors told the Budget & Policy Committee that Denver’s current municipal code allows penalties up to 300 days in jail and $999 fines for a broad range of offenses, which they said disproportionately affect low-income and immigrant residents.
The proposal lays out five principal changes: revise the Denver Revised Municipal Code to match state maximum sentences where there is a comparable state offense; cap municipal-only offenses at petty‑offense levels (10 days, $300) unless a specific justification exists; align particular offenses to state-level penalties to retain higher sentences when appropriate (for example, certain assault/domestic-violence provisions); rewrite offense descriptions to borrow state statutory language and remove ambiguity; and eliminate mandatory prostitution fines so judges have discretion, with a maximum fine of $300.
Sponsors emphasized they used charging and court data to build the draft and said they had consulted judges, prosecutors, the public defender’s office, PACE and community groups. Councilmember Paradis said the bill adds five offense tiers to correspond with state sentencing classes and gives practitioners clearer language so courts and prosecutors do not have to rely on ad hoc agreements to determine which municipal sentence applies.
City Attorney Office prosecutors raised implementation questions. Marley Borodoski said adding a new 'class 5' civil-infraction tier without a clear statutory definition could inadvertently sweep in administrative citation processes (licensing or regulatory citations) and asked sponsors to ensure the draft excludes such civil administrative processes. The Municipal Public Defender’s office described client-support teams and post‑case services used to limit recidivism and said many offenses now receiving higher maximums were not actually sentenced at the maxima in practice.
Members debated scope and timing: some urged setting conservative defaults (10 days for muni-only offenses) and returning to raise sentences only where justified; others argued for preserving judicial discretion and ensuring carve-outs for serious offenses such as domestic violence. Sponsors said they have preserved higher sentencing authority for domestic-violence offenses where elements such as injury can be proven and that they will continue stakeholder engagement. The draft will be presented to the Safety Committee on March 18 for further review.
Next steps: sponsors will circulate a one‑sheet summarizing the bill and the new data pulls to council offices and stakeholders, work with the city attorney’s office to refine definitions (including any 'class 5' language), and return to committee for follow-up; no vote was taken at the Budget & Policy meeting.
