Kister v. Jones et al (INMATE 3), No. 5:2021cv01069 - Document 13 (N.D. Ala. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Corey L. Maze on 11/18/2021. (SRD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kister v. Jones et al (INMATE 3) Doc. 13 FILED 2021 Nov-18 PM 03:27 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JOHN ANDREW KISTER, Petitioner, v. PATRICE RICHIE JONES, Warden, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:21-cv-01069-CLM-HNJ 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). Dockets.Justia.com 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. _________________________________ COREY L. MAZE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
