Peo in Interest of Martinez-Wong

24CA1431 Peo in Interest of Martinez-Wong 10-24-2024

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA1431
Pueblo County District Court No. 24MH30058
Honorable Timothy O’Shea, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Petitioner-Appellee,

In the Interest of

Anthony Raul Martinez-Wong,

Respondent-Appellant.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division III
Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO
Dunn and Gomez, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced October 24, 2024

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, Anthony Raul Martinez-Wong, appeals the

district court’s order authorizing the involuntary administration of

antipsychotic medication for the purpose of restoring him to

competency to stand trial in a criminal case. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 Martinez-Wong was charged with multiple felonies (across

multiple cases) and found incompetent to stand trial. He was

ordered to undergo competency restoration and has been receiving

inpatient treatment at the Colorado Mental Health Hospital in

Pueblo (CMHHIP) since his admission in August 2023.

¶3 At CMHHIP, Martinez-Wong was diagnosed with

schizophrenia, which causes him to exhibit paranoia, multiple

delusions, and disorganized thinking. He has consistently refused

to take antipsychotic medication and has failed six competency

evaluations.

¶4 Almost a year after his admission to CMHHIP, the People

petitioned the district court to authorize the involuntary

administration of antipsychotic medication to restore Martinez-

Wong to competency. After a hearing, the court held that the

People had satisfied all four factors required by Sell v. United States,

1
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 the requested medication, Zyprexa (olanzapine).

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶5 Martinez-Wong argues that the evidence presented at the

hearing was insufficient to support the involuntary medication

order. While he concedes that sufficient evidence supports the first,

third, and fourth factors set forth in Sell, he says the evidence did

not support the second factor. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

¶6 Divisions of our court have divided about the appropriate

standard of review for application of the Sell factors. Compare

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

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

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

the remaining six factors), with People in Interest of R.F., 2019 COA

110, ¶ 21 (identifying four Sell factors and applying de novo review

to the first factor and clear error review for the remaining three

factors); see also People in Interest of Joergensen, 2022 COA 126,

2
¶¶ 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 factor for

clear error.1 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 by clear and convincing evidence. R.F., ¶ 16.

¶9 First, there must be important governmental interests at

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

1 We see no need to rely on the Tenth Circuit cases cited by the

parties.

3
accused of a serious crime is an important governmental interest.

Sell, 539 U.S. at 180; R.F., ¶ 12.

¶ 10 Second, administering involuntary medication must

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

¶ 13. The state satisfies this factor 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 the defense. Sell, 539 U.S. at 181; R.F., ¶ 13.

¶ 11 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 factor 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.

¶ 12 Fourth, administering the medication must be medically

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

C. Analysis

¶ 13 Martinez-Wong 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 him. In particular, he

contests the district court’s finding that the proposed treatment

plan is substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere

with his ability to assist in his defense.2

¶ 14 Martinez-Wong suffers from lupus, which he testified

“interfere[s] with [his] normal way of thinking.” On appeal, he

argues that, although the testifying psychiatrist was an expert in

the field of psychiatry, the psychiatrist was “admittedly not an

expert in lupus” and, therefore, the psychiatrist’s testimony was

insufficient to establish that the combination of Zyprexa and lupus

would be substantially unlikely to interfere with Martinez-Wong’s

ability to consult with his attorney.

¶ 15 True, the psychiatrist testified that he was not an expert in

lupus. But he was able to explain the symptoms of the condition,

and he opined that Martinez-Wong’s underlying medical problems

2 To the extent Martinez-Wong argues in his reply brief that the

evidence was insufficient to prove that the proposed treatment was
substantially likely to restore his competency, we do not consider
the argument on the merits because we do not address issues
raised for the first time in a reply brief. See People v. Montante,
2015 COA 40, ¶ 58 n.4.

5
would “not be affected” by treatment with Zyprexa. In support of

his opinion, the psychiatrist explained that he reviewed Martinez-

Wong’s medical records and “they do not suggest in any way that

treatment with an antipsychotic medication, specifically Zyprexa,

would negatively impact [Martinez-Wong’s] current medical

problems.” Moreover, the psychiatrist testified that treatment with

Zyprexa would not interfere with Martinez-Wong’s ability to

understand and participate in his criminal proceedings; rather, “it

would improve it.” Further, the psychiatrist testified that the failure

to medicate Martinez-Wong would be more harmful than the risk

posed by the use of Zyprexa because it would “lead to persistent

psychotic symptoms and continued psychiatric hospitalization” as

well as a failure to restore him to competency.

¶ 16 Based on this testimony, the district court found that

administering Zyprexa would significantly further the important

governmental interests at stake. The court further found that

“administering Zyprexa is substantially unlikely to have side effects

that will interfere significantly with [Martinez-Wong’s] ability to

assist his counsel in conducting a trial defense, which would

thereby render the trial unfair.” Finally, the court found that

6
treatment with “Zyprexa is medically appropriate” and “in

[Martinez-Wong’s] best medical interest . . . in light of his medical

condition of lupus.”

¶ 17 Because the record supplies 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 by clear and convincing evidence the second Sell factor.

III. Conclusion

¶ 18 The order is affirmed.

JUDGE DUNN and JUDGE GOMEZ concur.

7