28 U.S.C. §2255 provides remedies for prisoners seeking to challenge their sentences through a motion. Under this section, a prisoner sentenced by a court and currently held in custody can claim a right to release if the sentence is subject to collateral attack. These grounds include a sentence imposed in violation of United States laws or the Constitution, the court’s lack of jurisdiction to impose the sentence, sentences exceeding the statutory maximum, and the ineffective assistance of counsel, among others.

If a motion adequately pleads grounds for relief, the court must grant a hearing in order to determine the issues, make findings of fact, and draw conclusions as to the legitimacy of the sentence. If the court finds the sentence unlawful as a result of the collateral attack, the court must vacate the judgment and discharge the prisoner. This does not absolve the prisoner of all accountability for his or her former conviction, however, as the court may resentence the prisoner, correct the sentence, or grant a new trial.

The statute imposes a one year statute of limitations, which begins from the latest of four options: the date when the judgement of conviction becomes final; the date when the impediment to making a motion is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion due to governmental action; the date when the right asserted was recognized by Supreme Court, if the right is retroactively applicable on collateral review; or the date when facts supporting the claim could be discovered through due diligence. The statute also allows for second and successive motions when new evidence is discovered, or a new rule of constitutional law is made retroactively available.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under §2255 face several hurdles on the path to success. Counsel has broad discretion in the performance of duties, which requires the defendant to show that counsel made errors so severe, the counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. This burden rests solely on the defendant, with the court presuming that an attorney acted reasonably. The defendant must demonstrate that no competent attorney would have taken the same actions as their counsel, and that those actions caused prejudice. This heavy burden leads many §2255 claims to fail, as courts often find that while counsel could have made different choices, those choices do not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.

In the case of Rodriguez v. United States, No. 23-10502, 2024 WL 1794146 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit laid out the necessary elements of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under §2255. To support such a claim, the petitioner must show that performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance resulted in prejudice. In Rodriguez, the defendant had pleaded guilty, adding the further requirement that the defendant must show that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. The defendant claimed that his counsel had erroneously advised him that pleading guilty would not waive his right to appeal pretrial motions. The district court, when reviewing the defendant’s claims, looked to whether the defendant would have succeeded on appeal if he had not waived his right to appeal the pretrial motions. The Eleventh Circuit found that the correct inquiry was not the defendant’s probable success, and instead was limited to whether or not the defendant would have pled guilty and insisted on going to trial. The defendant’s claim that, without counsel’s erroneous advice, he would not have pled guilty, was sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing on whether or not counsel was truly ineffective. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the denial of the defendant’s §2255 motion and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing.

While §2255 claims face a heavy burden, Rodriguez demonstrates a legitimate basis for relief, indicating the level of specificity courts seek when ruling on §2255 motions. By establishing a clear link between counsel’s erroneous advice and the defendant’s guilty plea, the defendant was able to sufficiently plead to both the deficiency of the performance and the prejudicial impact of the performance. When pursuing a §2255 claim, it is crucial to address both elements, providing sufficient facts to demonstrate each and clearly linking them to counsel’s ineffective performance.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.