FEDERAL POST CONVICTION – 2255& 2254

The Writ of Habeas Corpus was developed in the Middle Ages in England that commanded the Crown to “bring forth the body” before a judge so that a determination could be made whether his continued incarceration was unlawful. This right of incarcerated persons to seek a final review of their case after they have lost their appeal is the final stage of the battle for liberty.

For those convicted of Federal crimes, who have lost their appeals and remain incarcerated, the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been codified in Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255. Motions to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Illegal Sentences Pursuant to Section 2255 frequently explore such issues as whether the prosecution had hidden or suppressed evidence favorable to the accused or whether the defendant at trial or on appeal had been represented by an incompetent lawyer.

For those convicted of State crimes, who have lost their appeals and remain incarcerated, the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been codified in Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. Much like the Motions Pursuant to Section 2255, Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Illegal Sentences Pursuant to Section 2254 frequently explore such issues as whether the prosecution had hidden or suppressed evidence favorable to the accused or whether the defendant at trial or on appeal had been represented by an incompetent lawyer.

Before filing a Motion to Vacate Pursuant to Section 2254, a State prisoner must exhaust his State remedy. In Florida, this means filing a Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Pursuant to Rules 3.850 or 3.851, in a death penalty case, in the State Court where the defendant was convicted and sentenced. If the Rule 3.850 or 3.851 Motion is denied in the State trial court, it must be fully litigated on appeal within the State system before a Motion to Vacate under Section 2254 can be filed in Federal Court.

In a State case, a Motion to Vacate Pursuant to Section 2254 is the first opportunity for review of a State conviction in Federal Court. There are special rules for applying Federal constitutional principles to State law that must be understood and applied by any attorney who wants to successfully litigate Motions to Vacate under Section 2254 in Federal Court.

A Motion to Vacate under Section 2255 is filed in the District Court that heard the trial. A Motion to Vacate a State conviction under Section 2254 is filed in the District Court where the State Court where the Defendant was convicted and sentenced is located. Usually, the Federal District Judge will refer the Motion to a Federal Magistrate Judge. He or she will typically allow the Movant to supplement his Motion, and the Government to respond to it. The goal is always to obtain an evidentiary hearing where the defendant will have an opportunity to develop a factual basis for relief. Motions filed under Sections 2255 and 2254 are almost never granted without an evidentiary hearing. The decision of the Magistrate Judge can be appealed to the District Court by either losing party, including the Government.

Habeas Corpus cases are some of the most legally and factually complex when compared to any other area of law. Yet, there is no constitutional right to have an attorney represent a defendant at this stage of the proceeding. Most people who are eligible to file these motions are serving lengthy prison sentences. They frequently do it themselves or with the help of fellow inmates. Doing this can be disastrous. This is because the law only gives you one opportunity to file a Motion under Section 2255 or 2254. Mr. White has seen all too often the rejection of a meritorious Motion to Vacate under Sections 2255 or 2254 because the defendant had already filed the one allowed.

There is also a one-year Statute of Limitations on filing Motions to Vacate Pursuant to Sections 2255 or 2254. The Federal Courts strictly enforce this Statute of Limitations. The time period begins to run 60 days after the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in a case that was tried before a jury or from the date of the sentencing, if the defendant is challenging and seeking to withdraw his guilty or no contest plea. When a conviction becomes final, it is time to get a second opinion about the case that reviews all that occurred before must be pursued immediately.
The complexity of litigating Motions to Vacate under Sections 2255 and 2254 includes the special rules governing appeals from decisions of the Federal trial court. In order to have an appeal from such a denial heard by a panel of three judges sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals, either the District Court or a single judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals must issue what is called a Certificate of Appealability. Understanding how best to obtain a

Certificate of Appealability is an essential skill for attorneys seeking to be proficient in habeas litigation. For over 15 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has been making needed changes in what has developed as overly harsh and unfair sentencing schemes. Starting with the 2000 decision, Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court began eroding mandatory sentencing schemes that were based on the decisions of judges, not juries. Motion to Vacate under Sections 2255 and 2254 can, under certain circumstances, be filed long after a conviction has been made final if the Supreme Court had established a new rule that can be applied retroactively.

For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama, all of which considered the sentences of juveniles as adults. The Court first invalidated the death penalty for juveniles, then mandatory life sentences for juveniles in non-homicide, and then homicide cases. These cases extend to State prisoners as well, who can obtain relief either through filing 3.850 or 3.851 Motions in State Court. If they do not prevail in the State Court, a Motion to Vacate Pursuant to Section 2254 can be filed, if timely, in Federal Court. More recently, the Supreme Court declared Florida’s death penalty statute unconstitutional in Hurst v. Florida. Mr. White is actively involved in seeking to apply Hurst to three death-row inmates with no other options.

Charles G. White has extensive experience litigating Motions to Vacate Pursuant to Sections 2255 or 2254. He knows how important it is to persuade the Court to allow an evidentiary hearing. Very few Motions under Sections 2255 or 2254 are ruled in favor of the defense without an evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing is the defendant’s opportunity to present new evidence from behind the scenes to show how his fundamental rights were violated. Mr. White understands the goal and the process for achieving it.