LEWIS v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, 387 P.3d 899

Background

Petitioner Marvel Edward Lewis pled nolo contendere in Oklahoma City Municipal Court to a minor speeding offense and expressly reserved the right to challenge the court's authority to impose a fine greater than the state Vehicle Code penalty.
Municipal Judge imposed an $84 fine; Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea, arguing the municipal penalty conflicted with state law and thus was unauthorized.
Municipal court denied the motion; Petitioner appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals via certiorari.
Central legal question: whether a city with a municipal criminal court of record may impose municipal traffic fines that exceed the penalties set in the state Vehicle Code.
The Court analyzed statutory text and legislative history of the Municipal Code (11 O.S.) and Vehicle Code (Title 47), focusing on the difference between cities with and without municipal criminal courts of record.
Court concluded the Legislature intentionally removed earlier statutory limits on penalties for cities that have municipal criminal courts of record, thereby authorizing such cities to impose penalties within the municipal-code limits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oklahoma City’s municipal speeding penalty conflicts with state Vehicle Code limits	Lewis: City penalty conflicts with 47 O.S. § 11-801(G); municipal fine cannot exceed state statute	City: Municipal Code authorizes municipalities with criminal courts of record to set penalties within municipal limits, even if higher than state fines	Held: No conflict — Legislature authorized cities with municipal criminal courts of record to impose penalties up to municipal-code limits
Whether 11 O.S. § 22-117 and 47 O.S. § 15-101 bar municipal ordinances that are more punitive than state law	Lewis: Those provisions prohibit municipal laws inconsistent with state law, so city cannot exceed Vehicle Code penalties	City: Those provisions permit additional regulations not inconsistent with state law; municipal-code provisions specifically allow greater penalties for courts of record	Held: Statutory scheme viewed holistically permits municipal enhancements where Legislature has authorized them
Whether the 1998 amendment removing limiting language from 11 O.S. § 28-102 changed permissible municipal penalty authority	Lewis: Amendment irrelevant to conflict argument	City: Removal shows Legislature intended to allow greater municipal penalties for cities with courts of record	Held: Amendment is evidence Legislature intended to grant broader penalty authority to such cities
Whether Hall v. State (100-foot signaling) precedentially bars municipal laws that exceed state requirements	Lewis: Hall suggests municipal ordinances cannot conflict with state law	City: Hall permits municipal rules that further public safety and do not contradict state law	Held: Hall supports cities enacting stricter regulations for safety; not dispositive against municipal penalties authorized by statute

Key Cases Cited

Hall v. State, 221 P.3d 130 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (municipal traffic rules requiring more than state law are permissible if not inconsistent and promote safety)
Ex parte Johnson, 201 P. 533 (Okla. 1921) (municipalities may enact further police regulations on same subject if not inconsistent with general law)
Vantine v. City of Tulsa, 518 P.2d 316 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) (Legislature had authorized cities with criminal courts of record to impose fines consistent with municipal ordinance)
In re Blain, 172 P.2d 795 (Okla. 1946) (legislative changes and prior law are indicators of legislative intent)
American Airlines v. Hickman, 164 P.3d 146 (Okla. 2007) (statutory amendment may show intent to change or clarify law)
Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996) (statutory construction principles: examine whole statute and related laws)
Gonseth v. State, 871 P.2d 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (preservation of claims for appellate review when raised timely below)