Peo in Interest of Powell

── Peo in Interest of Powell ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 26CA0345 Peo in Interest of Powell 05-14-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 26CA0345 Arapahoe County District Court No. 25MH149 Honorable H. Clay Hurst, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of Monique Powell, Respondent-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division IV Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ Freyre and Brown, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 14, 2026 Ron Carl, County Attorney, Meghan Rubincam, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Aurora, Colorado for Petitioner-Appellee Tezak Law, P.C., Mary Tezak, Florence, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant ¶1 Monique Powell appeals the district court’s order authorizing (1) a six-month extension of her certification for long-term care and treatment under section 27-65-110(5), C.R.S. 2025; and (2) the involuntary administration of medication. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 Powell has a ten-year history of mental illness and psychiatric hospitalizations. Since February 2025, she has been receiving care and treatment for a mental health diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. She has been an outpatient client of Aurora Mental Health & Recovery (AMHR) since April 2025 and subject to various court orders, most recently an August 2025 order granting long-term certification of Powell and the involuntary administration of her medications. ¶3 In January 2026, Powell’s treatment providers at AMHR sought an extension of Powell’s long-term certification along with an extension of the order authorizing medical personnel to involuntarily administer her medication. As pertinent to this appeal, the certification petition alleged that Powell is gravely disabled because of her mental illness. The petition seeking an order authorizing the involuntary administration of medications 1  asked the court to permit, as relevant here, the involuntary administration of Abilify, an antipsychotic medication, and three other drugs to address potential side effects. ¶4 Following an evidentiary hearing, at which the district court heard testimony from both Powell and one of her treating psychiatrists, Dr. Erin Smith, the court entered an order extending Powell’s long-term care certification for six months and authorizing the involuntary administration of Abilify but denying the request for authorization to administer the remaining medications involuntarily. ¶5 The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Powell has a mental health disorder and is gravely disabled. And the court found that the People had clearly and convincingly established all four elements necessary for the involuntary administration of Abilify: (1) Powell is incompetent to effectively participate in the treatment decision; (2) the treatment is necessary to prevent a significant and likely long-term deterioration in her mental health condition or to prevent the likelihood that she will cause serious harm to herself or others; (3) a less intrusive treatment alternative is not available; and (4) Powell’s need for treatment is sufficiently 2  compelling to override any bona fide and legitimate interest she has in refusing treatment. See People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961, 973 (Colo. 1985). II. Discussion ¶6 Powell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s order. In particular, she contends that the evidence was insufficient to support (1) a finding that she is gravely disabled and (2) the first and third Medina elements. We address each contention in turn. A. Standard of Review ¶7 When a party c