Peo in Interest of Koons

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.

8