Welch v. Attorney General of the State of Colorado

── Welch v. Attorney General of the State of Colorado ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MERCEIR CARDAN WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 25-1315 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-03371-LTB-RTG) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE (D. Colo.) OF COLORADO, Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Merceir Cardan Welch, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal the denial of a § 2254 application). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. I. BACKGROUND In December 2024, Mr. Welch filed a § 2254 application stating that he was confined at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Colorado. He alleged he had been convicted in Colorado state court on two counts of violating Colorado’s Pawnbroker Act, * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2 both class six felonies; one felony theft charge; and one count of unlawful sexual contact, a misdemeanor. He also alleged he was sentenced in 2018 to one year in prison and eight years of felony sex offender intensive supervised probation (“SOISP”). He claimed his sentence was illegal, the state court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction over him, and his defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective by not informing him of the SOISP consequence of pleading guilty to the sex offense. A magistrate judge reviewed the application and ordered Mr. Welch to cure two deficiencies in the application: it was not on the proper form, and it did not name his custodian or the Colorado Attorney General as the respondent. Mr. Welch filed an amended § 2254 application on the proper form and named the Colorado Attorney General as the respondent. He asserted that the state court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction over him because the statutes underlying his convictions “are invalid laws that me A Natural Man is not subject to per the United States Constitution”; he is descended from British royalty; and “this World & it’s [sic] ruler has no claim on [him]” because he is “in Fact Jesus Christ.” R. at 81. The magistrate judge found that the “claim and supporting factual allegations provide[d] no specific credible allegations of a constitutional violation,” as required by Rules 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), but were “fantastic, delusional, and factually frivolous.” Suppl. R. at 9. Accordingly, the magistrate