Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01331/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01331-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

JESSE BARAJAS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

FRANCIS FALK, Warden, L.C.F.; THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF COLORADO, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 15-1331 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-01827-PAB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Jesse Barajas, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se,1

 seeks a certificate 

of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition for habeas relief. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). We 

grant Barajas’ IFP motion but deny his request for a COA and dismiss this matter. 

A jury convicted Barajas of theft from an at-risk adult, robbery, and third-

 *

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 

value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Barajas appears pro se, we liberally construe his combined brief and 

COA application. Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009). But 

we don’t assume the role of his advocate. Id. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 24, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1331 Document: 01019591589 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 Page: 1 
2 

degree assault based on his participation in a series of purse snatchings. The trial 

court later adjudicated Barajas a habitual criminal under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-

801 and imposed a controlling sentence of 48 years’ imprisonment. The court ordered 

Barajas to serve that sentence consecutively to his controlling sentence in another 

case, resulting in a total prison term of 224 years. 

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed Barajas’ convictions and sentence on 

direct appeal, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Barajas moved for 

postconviction relief under Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c), alleging ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel. The state district court denied relief, the Colorado Court of Appeals 

affirmed, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Barajas then filed his 

§ 2254 federal habeas petition, which the district court denied. The district court did 

not rule on a COA. 

Barajas now seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his habeas petition.2

But first he must obtain a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We will grant a COA 

only if Barajas makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

See id. § 2253(c)(2). This means Barajas must “show[] that reasonable jurists could 

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved 

in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve 

 2

 Barajas filed an untimely notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment. 

The district court ultimately entered an order reopening the time to appeal under Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(6), and granted Barajas’ motion to file the appeal out of time, curing 

the jurisdictional defect. 

Appellate Case: 15-1331 Document: 01019591589 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 Page: 2 
3 

encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Barajas makes four arguments: (1) the State violated his Fourteenth 

Amendment right to due process by failing to present sufficient evidence of his 

complicity to support his robbery conviction, (2) the State violated his Fourteenth 

Amendment right to due process by erroneously instructing the jury on the theory of 

complicity, (3) trial counsel’s failure to object to the erroneous complicity instruction 

violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and (4) trial 

counsel’s failure to request that a jury, rather than the judge, determine his status as a 

habitual criminal violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of 

counsel. 

The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected these claims on the merits. Thus, to 

obtain federal habeas relief, Barajas must show that the CCA’s rejection of these 

claims was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 

established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In a thorough, well-reasoned order, the 

district court addressed the CCA’s treatment of each of Barajas’ constitutional claims 

and determined Barajas wasn’t entitled to habeas relief. 

We have reviewed Barajas’ arguments, the appellate record, the CCA’s 

decision, the district court’s order denying habeas relief, and the applicable law. 

Based on this review, we conclude Barajas hasn’t demonstrated that reasonable 

Appellate Case: 15-1331 Document: 01019591589 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 Page: 3 
4 

jurists would debate the correctness of the district court’s resolution of his petition. 

Thus, we deny Barajas’ request for a COA and dismiss this matter. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-1331 Document: 01019591589 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 Page: 4