Kister v. Jones et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Corey L. Maze on 11/18/2021. (SRD)

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).

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