25CA1881 Peo in Interest of Koons 12-04-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA1881 Pueblo County District Court No. 25MH30085 Honorable Amiel Markenson, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Petitioner-Appellee,
In the Interest of Derrick Koons,
Respondent-Appellant.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division VI Opinion by JUDGE SULLIVAN Welling and Gomez, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced December 4, 2025
Cynthia Mitchell, County Attorney, Kate H. Shafer, Special Assistant County Attorney, Pueblo, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee
Tezak Law, P.C., Mary Tezak, Florence, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant ¶1 Respondent, Derrick Koons, appeals a district court’s order
committing him to the custody of the Behavioral Health
Administration (BHA) under section 27-81-112, C.R.S. 2025. We
affirm.
I. Background
¶2 Koons’ mother petitioned to have Koons committed to the
custody of the BHA based on a substance use disorder, generally
alleging that due to his persistent use of opioids and
methamphetamine, Koons’ behavior was increasingly erratic and
dangerous to his family, his community, and himself. As relevant
here, Koons’ mother alleged that Koons had recently (1) threatened
to kill his nieces and to burn down the house where he lived with
his parents; (2) set two fires in a nearby city park; and (3) failed to
shower or change his clothes for several weeks in a row, causing
sores and skin infections.
¶3 The petition included a detailed involuntary commitment
application completed by Koons’ mother and a certificate completed
by Dr. Roderick O’Brien, Koons’ treating physician at Centennial
Peaks Hospital. Finding the petition had merit, the district court
appointed counsel for Koons and set the matter for an evidentiary
1 hearing. The complete petition was admitted at the evidentiary
hearing, where Dr. O’Brien, a BHA program manager, Koons’
mother, and Koons testified.
¶4 Dr. O’Brien, an expert in clinical psychiatry, testified that
Koons’ long-term substance use had resulted in profound
impairment meeting the statutory definition of “substance use
disorder.” See § 27-81-102(13.8), C.R.S. 2025 (“‘Substance use
disorder’ means a chronic relapsing brain disease, characterized by
recurrent use of alcohol, drugs, or both, causing clinically
significant impairment, including health problems, disability, and
failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home.”) He
also opined that Koons was incapacitated by drugs, as defined by
section 27-81-102(9.2). The BHA program manager, an expert in
substance use treatment, agreed that Koons met the American
Society of Addiction Medicine diagnostic criteria for substance use
disorder and that Koons was incapacitated by drugs as defined by
statute. Koons’ mother’s involuntary commitment application and
testimony provided specific examples in support of these expert
opinions.
2 ¶5 Koons denied that he had a drug problem, that he posed a
threat to himself or others, and that he would continue to neglect
his hygiene if released. Still, he admitted that he used drugs almost
every day and intended to continue his drug use.
¶6 The district court found that the People had presented clear
and convincing evidence that Koons has a substance use disorder
and was incapacitated by substance use. Accordingly, the court
ordered Koons to be involuntarily committed to the BHA’s custody
for ninety days of inpatient substance abuse treatment unless
discharged sooner based on BHA-approved clinical progress.
II. Discussion
¶7 Koons challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the order. Specifically, he contends that insufficient evidence
supported the district court’s finding that he was incapacitated by
drugs. We conclude that ample evidence supported the court’s
finding.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
¶8 When a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we
review the record as a whole and, viewing it in the light most
favorable to the People, determine whether the evidence is sufficient
3 to support the district court’s decision. People in Interest of
Ramsey, 2023 COA 95, ¶ 23. We review the district court’s
conclusions of law de novo and defer to its findings of fact if they
are supported by evidence in the record. People v. Marquardt, 2016
CO 4, ¶ 8. We also defer to the district court’s resolution of
evidentiary conflicts and its determinations of witness credibility,
the weight of the evidence, and the inferences drawn from the
evidence. See People in Interest of R.C., 2019 COA 99M, ¶ 7.
¶9 Section 27-81-112(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a court
may commit a person to the BHA’s custody if it finds
that the person has a substance use disorder and that the person has threatened or attempted to inflict or inflicted physical harm on the person’s self or on another and that unless committed, the person is likely to inflict physical harm on the person’s self or on another or that the person is incapacitated by substances.
Before entering a commitment order, the court must find that these
grounds for involuntary treatment have been established by clear
and convincing evidence. § 27-81-112(5); People in Interest of N.G.,
2025 COA 92, ¶ 8.
4 ¶ 10 A person may be incapacitated by substances if they are
incapacitated by either alcohol or drugs. § 27-81-102(9.4). As
relevant here,
“[i]ncapacitated by drugs” means that a person, as a result of the use of drugs, [1] is unconscious or has judgment otherwise so impaired that the person is incapable of realizing and making a rational decision with respect to the person’s need for treatment, [2] is unable to take care of basic personal needs or safety, or [3] lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate rational decisions concerning himself or herself.
§ 27-81-102(9.2) (emphasis added).
B. The Record Supports That Koons Was Incapacitated By Drugs
¶ 11 In deciding that Koons was incapacitated by drugs, the district
court found that all three of the People’s witnesses — Dr. O’Brien,
the BHA program manager, and Koons’ mother — were credible.
From their testimony, the court found that Koons was incapacitated
by drugs based on multiple statutory bases. The court found that
(1) Koons’ judgment was so impaired that he was incapable of
realizing and making a rational decision as to his need for
treatment; (2) he was unable to care for his basic personal needs;
and (3) he lacked sufficient understanding of his drug problem to
5 make or communicate rational decisions concerning his need for
treatment. Koons contends that the People presented insufficient
evidence to establish these findings. Like the district court, we
perceive plentiful evidence that Koons was incapacitated by drugs.
¶ 12 The district court heard from each of the People’s witnesses
that Koons had failed to care for his basic personal needs. Koons’
mother expanded on the hygiene-related allegations in her petition,
testifying that Koons not only refused to shower, wash his face, or
change clothes — which, when eventually removed, would be “stiff
from his body oils and perspiration” — but he also refused to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
25CA1881 Peo in Interest of Koons 12-04-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA1881 Pueblo County District Court No. 25MH30085 Honorable Amiel Markenson, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Petitioner-Appellee,
In the Interest of Derrick Koons,
Respondent-Appellant.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division VI Opinion by JUDGE SULLIVAN Welling and Gomez, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced December 4, 2025
Cynthia Mitchell, County Attorney, Kate H. Shafer, Special Assistant County Attorney, Pueblo, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee
Tezak Law, P.C., Mary Tezak, Florence, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant ¶1 Respondent, Derrick Koons, appeals a district court’s order
committing him to the custody of the Behavioral Health
Administration (BHA) under section 27-81-112, C.R.S. 2025. We
affirm.
I. Background
¶2 Koons’ mother petitioned to have Koons committed to the
custody of the BHA based on a substance use disorder, generally
alleging that due to his persistent use of opioids and
methamphetamine, Koons’ behavior was increasingly erratic and
dangerous to his family, his community, and himself. As relevant
here, Koons’ mother alleged that Koons had recently (1) threatened
to kill his nieces and to burn down the house where he lived with
his parents; (2) set two fires in a nearby city park; and (3) failed to
shower or change his clothes for several weeks in a row, causing
sores and skin infections.
¶3 The petition included a detailed involuntary commitment
application completed by Koons’ mother and a certificate completed
by Dr. Roderick O’Brien, Koons’ treating physician at Centennial
Peaks Hospital. Finding the petition had merit, the district court
appointed counsel for Koons and set the matter for an evidentiary
1 hearing. The complete petition was admitted at the evidentiary
hearing, where Dr. O’Brien, a BHA program manager, Koons’
mother, and Koons testified.
¶4 Dr. O’Brien, an expert in clinical psychiatry, testified that
Koons’ long-term substance use had resulted in profound
impairment meeting the statutory definition of “substance use
disorder.” See § 27-81-102(13.8), C.R.S. 2025 (“‘Substance use
disorder’ means a chronic relapsing brain disease, characterized by
recurrent use of alcohol, drugs, or both, causing clinically
significant impairment, including health problems, disability, and
failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home.”) He
also opined that Koons was incapacitated by drugs, as defined by
section 27-81-102(9.2). The BHA program manager, an expert in
substance use treatment, agreed that Koons met the American
Society of Addiction Medicine diagnostic criteria for substance use
disorder and that Koons was incapacitated by drugs as defined by
statute. Koons’ mother’s involuntary commitment application and
testimony provided specific examples in support of these expert
opinions.
2 ¶5 Koons denied that he had a drug problem, that he posed a
threat to himself or others, and that he would continue to neglect
his hygiene if released. Still, he admitted that he used drugs almost
every day and intended to continue his drug use.
¶6 The district court found that the People had presented clear
and convincing evidence that Koons has a substance use disorder
and was incapacitated by substance use. Accordingly, the court
ordered Koons to be involuntarily committed to the BHA’s custody
for ninety days of inpatient substance abuse treatment unless
discharged sooner based on BHA-approved clinical progress.
II. Discussion
¶7 Koons challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the order. Specifically, he contends that insufficient evidence
supported the district court’s finding that he was incapacitated by
drugs. We conclude that ample evidence supported the court’s
finding.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
¶8 When a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we
review the record as a whole and, viewing it in the light most
favorable to the People, determine whether the evidence is sufficient
3 to support the district court’s decision. People in Interest of
Ramsey, 2023 COA 95, ¶ 23. We review the district court’s
conclusions of law de novo and defer to its findings of fact if they
are supported by evidence in the record. People v. Marquardt, 2016
CO 4, ¶ 8. We also defer to the district court’s resolution of
evidentiary conflicts and its determinations of witness credibility,
the weight of the evidence, and the inferences drawn from the
evidence. See People in Interest of R.C., 2019 COA 99M, ¶ 7.
¶9 Section 27-81-112(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a court
may commit a person to the BHA’s custody if it finds
that the person has a substance use disorder and that the person has threatened or attempted to inflict or inflicted physical harm on the person’s self or on another and that unless committed, the person is likely to inflict physical harm on the person’s self or on another or that the person is incapacitated by substances.
Before entering a commitment order, the court must find that these
grounds for involuntary treatment have been established by clear
and convincing evidence. § 27-81-112(5); People in Interest of N.G.,
2025 COA 92, ¶ 8.
4 ¶ 10 A person may be incapacitated by substances if they are
incapacitated by either alcohol or drugs. § 27-81-102(9.4). As
relevant here,
“[i]ncapacitated by drugs” means that a person, as a result of the use of drugs, [1] is unconscious or has judgment otherwise so impaired that the person is incapable of realizing and making a rational decision with respect to the person’s need for treatment, [2] is unable to take care of basic personal needs or safety, or [3] lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate rational decisions concerning himself or herself.
§ 27-81-102(9.2) (emphasis added).
B. The Record Supports That Koons Was Incapacitated By Drugs
¶ 11 In deciding that Koons was incapacitated by drugs, the district
court found that all three of the People’s witnesses — Dr. O’Brien,
the BHA program manager, and Koons’ mother — were credible.
From their testimony, the court found that Koons was incapacitated
by drugs based on multiple statutory bases. The court found that
(1) Koons’ judgment was so impaired that he was incapable of
realizing and making a rational decision as to his need for
treatment; (2) he was unable to care for his basic personal needs;
and (3) he lacked sufficient understanding of his drug problem to
5 make or communicate rational decisions concerning his need for
treatment. Koons contends that the People presented insufficient
evidence to establish these findings. Like the district court, we
perceive plentiful evidence that Koons was incapacitated by drugs.
¶ 12 The district court heard from each of the People’s witnesses
that Koons had failed to care for his basic personal needs. Koons’
mother expanded on the hygiene-related allegations in her petition,
testifying that Koons not only refused to shower, wash his face, or
change clothes — which, when eventually removed, would be “stiff
from his body oils and perspiration” — but he also refused to
remove his shoes or to care for his oral health. He had sores on his
feet, had no teeth, and appeared to be homeless. The experts
further opined that Koons was unable to function in the
community, support himself financially, or meet his basic need for
shelter. See People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127, 1134 (Colo. 1980)
(noting that basic personal needs include “food, shelter, clothing,
and medical care”). We conclude that this evidence amply
demonstrates that Koons was unable to take care of basic personal
needs and sufficiently supports the court’s decision that Koons was
incapacitated by drugs.
6 ¶ 13 Beyond Koons’ inability to take care of his basic personal
needs, the record provides substantial additional support for the
district court’s decision. Dr. O’Brien testified that Koons has a
“startling lack of insight” into his substance use disorder and
“profoundly impaired judgment as it pertains to the consequences
of using [drugs].” According to both expert witnesses, Koons also
lacks insight into his high-risk behaviors such as lighting fires and
hitting golf balls into a populated park. Koons’ mother testified that
Koons didn’t appreciate the safety concerns involved in these
activities, explaining that he felt “relieved” to set the first fire in the
park because it had been a stressful day. Koons himself testified
that he “thought it was amusing” to set the fire.
¶ 14 This evidence, when viewed as a whole and in the light most
favorable to the People, is more than sufficient to support the
district court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that Koons
was incapacitated by substances. Because the record supports the
court’s decision, we won’t disturb it. To the extent Koons asks us to
second-guess witness credibility or to reweigh certain evidence, we
decline to do so. See R.C., ¶ 7.
7 III. Disposition
¶ 15 We affirm the order.
JUDGE WELLING and JUDGE GOMEZ concur.