Peo in Interest of Lockley

25CA2316 Peo in Interest of Lockley 02-19-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA2316
Pueblo County District Court No. 25MH30116
Honorable Amiel Markenson, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Petitioner-Appellee,

In the Interest of Nefretarie Lockley,

Respondent-Appellant.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division V
Opinion by JUSTICE MARTINEZ*
Tow and Lipinsky, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced February 19, 2026

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

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art.
VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2025.
¶1 Respondent, Nefretarie Lockley, appeals the district court’s

order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic

medication for the purpose of restoring her to competency to stand

trial in two criminal cases. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 Lockley was charged with multiple felonies and found

incompetent to stand trial in two cases. She was ordered to

undergo competency restoration and has been receiving inpatient

treatment at the Colorado Mental Health Hospital in Pueblo (the

hospital) since her admission in October 2025.

¶3 At the hospital, Lockley was diagnosed with schizoaffective

disorder, bipolar type, which causes her to exhibit disorganized

speech, delusions, depressed episodes, mania, and flight of ideas.

While Lockley initially agreed to take Latuda, an antipsychotic

medication, she subsequently refused all other antipsychotic

medications.

¶4 In November, the People petitioned the district court to

authorize the involuntary administration of antipsychotic

medication to restore Lockley to competency. After a hearing, the

court held that the People had satisfied all four elements required

1
by Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), for the involuntary

administration of medication to restore a person’s competency.

Therefore, the court granted the petition and authorized the

involuntary administration of Invega and Zyprexa, both of which are

antipsychotic medications; however, the court declined to authorize

treatment with Latuda. (Zyprexa is also a mood stabilizer.)

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶5 Lockley argues that the evidence presented at the hearing was

insufficient to support the involuntary medication order. While she

concedes that sufficient evidence supports the first, third, and

fourth elements set forth in Sell, she says the evidence did not

support the second element. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

¶6 Divisions of our court have divided about the appropriate

standard of review for application of the Sell elements. Compare

People in Interest of Hardesty, 2014 COA 138, ¶¶ 15-17 (identifying

eight Sell elements and applying a mixed question review to the first

element, de novo review to the second element, and clear error

review to the remaining six elements), with People in Interest of R.F.,

2019 COA 110, ¶ 21 (identifying four Sell elements and applying de

2
novo review to the first element and clear error review for the

remaining three elements); see also People in Interest of Joergensen,

2022 COA 126, ¶¶ 11-12 (noting that there are “four [Sell]

elements” and stating that “[t]he resolution of a Sell motion

presents a mixed question of fact and law”).

¶7 We agree with the division’s reasoning in R.F. and review the

district court’s factual findings concerning the second Sell element

for clear error. Clear error review means we will not disturb a

court’s factual findings if there is any evidence in the record to

support them. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco,

LLC, 2020 COA 34, ¶ 24.

B. Applicable Law

¶8 As noted, the United States Supreme Court has established a

four-part test for determining when a state may involuntarily

administer antipsychotic medication to restore a defendant’s

competency in a criminal proceeding. See Sell, 539 U.S. at 180-81;

see also R.F., ¶ 21. The People bear the burden of proving each

part of the test by clear and convincing evidence. R.F., ¶ 16.

First, there must be important governmental interests at stake.

Sell, 539 U.S. at 180; R.F., ¶ 12. Bringing to trial a person accused

3
of a serious crime is an important governmental interest. Sell, 539

U.S. at 180; R.F., ¶ 12.

¶9 Second, administering involuntary medication must

significantly further those interests. Sell, 539 U.S. at 181; R.F.,

¶ 13. The state satisfies this element by showing that

(1) administering the medication is substantially likely to restore

the defendant’s competency and (2) the medication is substantially

unlikely to have side effects that will interfere with the defendant’s

ability to assist in her defense. Sell, 539 U.S. at 181; R.F., ¶ 13.

¶ 10 Third, the medication must be necessary to further the

government’s interests. Sell, 539 U.S. at 181; R.F., ¶ 14. The state

satisfies this element by showing that (1) any less intrusive

treatment alternatives are unlikely to achieve substantially the

same results and (2) less intrusive means for administering the

medication were considered. Sell, 539 U.S. at 181; R.F., ¶ 14.

¶ 11 Fourth, administering the medication must be medically

appropriate. Sell, 539 U.S. at 181; R.F., ¶ 15.

C. Analysis

¶ 12 Lockley asserts that there was insufficient evidence to

establish the second Sell element — that is, that the involuntary

4
administration of the requested medication would significantly

further the state’s interest in prosecuting her. In particular, she

contests the district court’s finding that the proposed treatment

plan is substantially unlikely to have side effects that would

interfere with her ability to assist in her defense.

¶ 13 First, Lockley alleges that the side effects she previously

experienced from Latuda — including “nausea, bodily tremors,

feelings of loss of control, difficulty remaining calm, discomfort

outside her normal mental state, and restlessness in her limbs” —

“risk impairing her ability to think clearly and communicate

effectively with counsel.” But the district court declined to order the

involuntary administration of Latuda based on Dr. Graham

Hoffman’s testimony that (1) Latuda would only be provided if

Lockley requested it and (2) there was “[n]ot a huge risk” in

returning to court to add another medication if it was needed. See

People in Interest of Ferguson, 2025 COA 82, ¶ 1 (a treating

physician’s demonstrated need for flexibility in treatment options is

a relevant consideration for the authorization of more than one

medication option). Accordingly, we do not address this contention.

5
¶ 14 Next, Lockley alleges that the side effects she experienced

when she took Invega (seizures) and the possible side effects of

Zyprexa (sedation) risk impairing her ability to assist in her defense.

But Dr. Hoffman testified that the chance of Invega causing a

seizure was “extremely unlikely” — less than 0.001 percent. He

also explained that the sedation that sometimes occurs with

Zyprexa “seems to disappear” after “a few months.” Dr. Hoffman

assured the court that the hospital personnel would monitor

Lockley for side effects and that additional medications were

available to neutralize some of those side effects, should they occur.

He also testified that treatment with the requested medications

would not interfere with Lockley’s ability to understand and

participate in her criminal proceedings; rather, “she’ll be even more

ready to participate in her defense when she’s thinking more

clearly, and the meds are designed to do that.” Further, Dr.

Hoffman testified that the failure to medicate Lockley would be

more harmful than the risks posed from the requested medications

because, without treatment, Lockley’s condition could become

permanent such that she will never be restored to competency.

6
¶ 15 Based on this testimony, the district court found that

administering Invega and Zyprexa would significantly further the

important governmental interests at stake. The court further found

that the administration of the requested medication was

substantially likely to render Lockley competent to stand trial and

was substantially unlikely to have side effects that would interfere

significantly with her ability to assist her counsel in conducting a

trial defense, thereby rendering the trial unfair. In so finding, the

court specifically found that Dr. Hoffman testified “credibly and

persuasively,” while Lockley’s testimony was generally not credible,

and specifically not credible regarding her report that Invega and

Zyprexa caused her side effects.

¶ 16 Because there is factual support for the district court’s

findings, they are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we must

uphold the court’s finding that the People met their burden to

establish the second Sell factor by clear and convincing evidence.

III. Disposition

¶ 17 The order is affirmed.

JUDGE TOW and JUDGE LIPINSKY concur.

7