Lakewood council adopts code changes to align with People v. Camp, authorizes sentencing schedule with one-year sunset

The Lakewood City Council voted 9-0 on March 23 to adopt amendments to Title I of the Lakewood Municipal Code that incorporate the Colorado Supreme Court decision People v. Camp, authorize a municipal sentencing schedule for certain offenses, and add procedures for bond-revocation hearings. Councilors approved the ordinance as amended after a staff presentation and a council amendment to sunset the sentencing-schedule authorization.

Patrick Freeman, senior assistant city attorney, told the council the ordinance makes three substantive changes: "there's only really 3 substantive changes that are going to be made" — adding People v. Camp language to the municipal sentencing scheme, expressly permitting the court to create a sentencing schedule for non-identical but similar offenses, and adding procedure for bond-revocation hearings. Freeman said the changes are intended to bring municipal practice into alignment with state law and to make sentencing guidance clearer for defendants and judges.

Freeman explained the practical effect on penalties: municipal maximum fines are currently set at $2,650 and imprisonment up to 364 days for certain municipal violations, while state law caps are lower for some misdemeanor classes. He said the sentencing schedule would allow the court to advise defendants of presumptive ranges that are more consistent with likely sentences rather than alarming maximums.

Councilors questioned whether the changes would unduly transfer legislative authority to the judiciary. Councilor I. Cruz moved an amendment to add a sunset provision to the sentencing-schedule authorization, proposing that the provision "shall sunset on May 1st, 2027." The amendment passed 9-0. Councilor Low asked that the court share any draft sentencing schedule with the council; Ms. McKenney Brown (city/court staff) said she is "in the process of drafting an email to the chief judge" and that the schedule should be provided to the council or included in the judge's report expected in early May.

The ordinance was adopted as amended by unanimous vote. The council discussion emphasized preservation of judicial discretion — Freeman repeatedly noted that a sentencing schedule would establish presumptive ranges and that judges retain authority to impose lower sentences based on individual circumstances.

Next steps noted during the meeting include the court providing the sentencing schedule to the council or including it in an upcoming report; the council did not set further legislative action on the ordinance during the session.