Kister v. Jones (INMATE 3)
Kister v. Jones (INMATE 3)
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOHN ANDREW KISTER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 5:21-cv-01069-CLM-HNJ ) PATRICE RICHIE JONES, Warden, et ) al., ) ) Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Andrew Kister, an Alabama state prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pro se under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Kister challenges his 2018 conviction and consecutive life sentence in Morgan County for first degree robbery.1 (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge entered a report that recommended that Kister’s petition be denied as time-barred pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2244. (Doc. 12). The magistrate judge notified the parties of their right to file objections to the report and recommendation within 14 days. (Doc. 12 at 18-19). No party filed an objection.
1 As set forth in the report and recommendation, a jury convicted Kister on three other first degree robbery charges on October 23, 2018. (Doc. 12 at 2). Kister’s habeas petition related to those convictions were address in Kister v. Jones, 5:21-cv-01018-AKK-HNJ. On December 12, 2018, the trial court imposed a sentence of life for each of those three convictions, to run consecutively. At his sentencing on those convictions, Kister notified the court he wanted to plead guilty to the first degree robbery charge at issue in this case, and did so, receiving a fourth consecutive life sentence. (Doc. 12 at 2, citing Kister v. Jones, 5:21-cv-01018-AKK-HNJ). This court has reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court agrees with that magistrate judge’s finding that Kister’s petition is time-barred, so the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. So the court will DENY Kister’s petition. Further, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability because Kister’s petition does not present issues that are debatable among Jurists of reason. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484-85(2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. The court will enter a separate Final Order. DONE on November 18, 2021.
/ eeegl Mle LK COREY LYMAZE 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown