Tafolla v. Rogers

── Tafolla v. Rogers ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5050 Document: 25 Date Filed: 05/13/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 13, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JESTIN TAFOLLA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 25-5050 (D.C. No. 4:22-CV-00140-SEH-SH) DAVID ROGERS, Warden, (N.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Jestin Tafolla, through counsel, applies for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. Background & Procedural History Mr. Tafolla was convicted after a jury trial in state court in Oklahoma of (1) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after two or more felonies and (2) possession of an illegal weapon. He was sentenced to life in prison. His convictions arose from a road rage incident that led to a physical altercation between Mr. Tafolla and * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-5050 Document: 25 Date Filed: 05/13/2026 Page: 2 Dennis Clayton. Mr. Tafolla struck Mr. Clayton repeatedly on the head while wearing brass knuckles. Two police officers intervened after observing the incident. Mr. Tafolla proceeded to trial. He testified in his defense. Several witnesses also testified at trial, including the two police officers. Mr. Clayton was not present at trial, but his out-of- court statements were introduced at trial through the officers’ testimony. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed on direct appeal. Mr. Tafolla then filed a state post-conviction relief application in the Tulsa County District Court, which was denied. The OCCA also denied the post-conviction appeal. Mr. Tafolla then filed his § 2254 habeas application in federal district court. The application listed three general grounds for relief, including several subclaims. The district court denied Mr. Tafolla’s application, determining some claims were procedurally barred and the remainder failed on the merits. COA Standard Mr. Tafolla needs a COA to appeal from the district court’s denial of his § 2254 application. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To obtain a COA, Mr. Tafolla must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires a petitioner to “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 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).