Kyle Andrew Coker v. United States

Coker · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division · December 22, 2025 · No. Civil Action No. H-25-0101; Criminal Action No. H-22-151-1

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Kyle Andrew Coker’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of pretrial and sentencing counsel. The court held that the motion was untimely because Coker’s conviction became final following the voluntary dismissal of his direct appeal. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and denied a certificate of appealability.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
Writing for the Court
David Hittner
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
Decision date
December 22, 2025
Docket number
Civil Action No. H-25-0101; Criminal Action No. H-22-151-1
Procedural posture
Petitioner moved pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on alleged ineffective assistance of pretrial and sentencing counsel. The Government moved to dismiss the motion as untimely and on the merits.
Standard of review
A § 2255 motion provides relief for constitutional transgressions and a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would result in a complete miscarriage of justice. Ineffective-assistance claims are evaluated under Strickland's deficient-performance and prejudice requirements. The court also applied the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Kyle Andrew Coker v. United States of America
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefineffective assistancesentencingcriminal procedure

Practice areas

federal post-conviction litigationcriminal defensehabeas corpus

Questions Presented

  1. When a federal criminal appeal is voluntarily dismissed, when does the conviction become final for purposes of the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)?
  2. Was Coker's § 2255 motion filed within the applicable one-year limitations period?
  3. Should a certificate of appealability issue when reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's resolution of the claims?

Holdings

  1. When a federal criminal direct appeal is voluntarily dismissed, further review is no longer possible and the conviction becomes final immediately for purposes of the § 2255 limitations period; the ninety-day period for seeking certiorari does not extend the limitations period in that circumstance.
  2. Coker's § 2255 motion was untimely because it was filed on January 6, 2025, more than one year after his voluntarily dismissed appeal and after the court's stated October 19, 2024 filing deadline.
  3. A certificate of appealability was denied because Coker did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists would not debate the court's resolution of his claims.

Key quotations

when a federal criminal direct appeal is voluntarily dismissed, further review is no longer possible, and thus, the federal conviction immediately becomes final under AEDPA for purposes of any future petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (III)
The “movant in a § 2255 proceeding has the burden of demonstrating that his filings are timely.” (III)
Because Coker does not allege facts showing his claim could be resolved in a different manner, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. (IV)

Factual background

Coker pleaded guilty on January 12, 2023, to possessing a firearm as a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced him on June 2, 2023, to 120 months' imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Although his plea agreement waived appellate rights, Coker filed an appeal that the Fifth Circuit dismissed on October 19, 2023, after his voluntary dismissal. He filed his § 2255 motion on January 6, 2025, alleging ineffective assistance in pretrial, plea, and sentencing proceedings.

Procedural history

Coker pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a prohibited person and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. He filed a direct appeal despite an appellate waiver, but the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) after Coker voluntarily dismissed it. Coker then filed his § 2255 motion on January 6, 2025. The district court held that the motion was untimely, denied the motion, granted the Government's motion to dismiss, entered final judgment, and denied a certificate of appealability.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…