28 U.S.C. § 2255 Attorney

By Ronald W. Chapman II
Last reviewed: April 2026A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not the same thing as a direct appeal. It is the main federal post-conviction vehicle for asking the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence because the judgment is unlawful in a way that direct appeal either did not address or could not adequately address. In many federal cases, § 2255 is where the most serious off-record constitutional claims actually belong.

The short answer

A federal prisoner may move under § 2255 to challenge a sentence on grounds that it was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence exceeded the lawful maximum, or that the judgment is otherwise subject to collateral attack. The motion is filed in the sentencing court, not the court of appeals, and it usually carries a 1-year limitations period running from the latest of several statutory triggering dates.

Direct appeal versus § 2255

This distinction is critical.

Direct appeal

A direct appeal usually reviews the district-court record for legal error.

Section 2255

A § 2255 motion is collateral review in the sentencing court. It is often the proper place for claims that depend on facts outside the existing appellate record.

Clients often blur the two together. That is understandable, but dangerous. Raising the right claim in the wrong procedural vehicle can cost time and credibility.

What claims can be raised under § 2255?

The statute identifies the broad categories. In practice, recurring § 2255 themes include:

• constitutional violations
• jurisdictional defects
• sentences exceeding the maximum authorized by law
• other fundamental defects that make the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack
• ineffective assistance of counsel
• conflicts or failures not fully visible on the direct-appeal record
• issues tied to newly discovered facts or newly recognized rights, depending on the circumstances

The key point is that § 2255 is not a general dissatisfaction motion. It is a serious federal proceeding that must be factually supported, legally precise, and filed on time.

The one-year limitation period

Section 2255 now contains a 1-year limitations period. The clock usually runs from the latest of several statutory triggers, including:

• the date the judgment of conviction becomes final
• the date an unlawful governmental impediment is removed
• the date on which the asserted right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable on collateral review
• the date on which supporting facts could have been discovered through due diligence

Timing is one of the biggest traps in post-conviction work. People often spend months “researching” on their own while the limitations period continues to run.

Why ineffective-assistance claims often belong in § 2255

Many clients want to raise ineffective assistance on direct appeal. Sometimes that is possible in limited ways, but in many cases the stronger vehicle is § 2255 because the claim depends on evidence outside the appellate record:

• what trial counsel investigated or failed to investigate
• what advice was actually given during plea discussions
• what strategic choices were or were not informed
• whether exculpatory evidence was pursued
• whether experts were consulted
• whether conflicts existed
• whether off-record failures changed the outcome

That does not mean every criticism of prior counsel becomes a valid § 2255 claim. It means the forum matters.

What happens after a § 2255 motion is filed?

The process is different from direct appeal. The sentencing court reviews the motion. If the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief, the court can deny it without an evidentiary hearing. If not, the statute contemplates notice to the United States and a prompt hearing and determination of the issues.

That means two things for clients:

1. a hearing is not automatic; and
2. the written motion matters enormously.

The case has to be built properly from the beginning.

Why § 2255 is not just “a second appeal”

I hear this misunderstanding all the time. A § 2255 motion is not a do-over of the opening brief. It is not an invitation to recycle every issue that lost on direct appeal. It is a different procedural remedy with a different scope, different burdens, and different strategic uses.

Some claims were or should have been handled on direct appeal. Others truly belong in § 2255. The lawyer handling the case needs to know the difference.

Second or successive motions are tightly restricted

Another reason the first § 2255 motion matters so much is that a second or successive motion is subject to strict limitations. The statute allows such motions only in narrow circumstances, such as newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.

In other words, § 2255 is not the area for casual drafting or “we will fix it later” thinking.

Why my background matters in § 2255 litigation

Many federal post-conviction motions are filed in cases that are technically complex, professionally catastrophic, and poorly understood by generalists. That is particularly true in healthcare fraud, controlled-substances, and other regulated-entity cases, where claims about counsel’s performance may involve:

• billing and reimbursement systems
• prescribing and standard-of-care evidence
• data sampling and loss methodology
• DEA and healthcare-program rules
• licensure and board implications
• expert development in medical or business fields

My career has been built in those types of federal cases. I am a former prosecutor, a former Marine Corps Judge Advocate, and I hold an LL.M. in Health Care Law from Loyola University Chicago. I have defended physicians, executives, and regulated entities in some of the highest-stakes federal matters in the region. That perspective is particularly valuable in § 2255 work because the key question is often not whether something went wrong in the abstract, but whether a constitutional or legal defect actually mattered in the reality of the case.

What I do in a § 2255 case

1. Identify the right vehicle

Before drafting anything, I determine whether the claim truly belongs in § 2255 rather than on direct appeal or in some other motion.

2. Calculate the limitation period precisely

No serious post-conviction work begins without a timing analysis.

3. Rebuild the case outside the narrow appellate lens

This includes the indictment, motions, transcripts, plea records, sentencing records, and often materials that were not part of the appellate briefing in any meaningful way.

4. Separate strong constitutional claims from weak hindsight arguments

A § 2255 motion is not strengthened by clutter.

5. Build the factual presentation

Because these claims often depend on real-world facts outside the appellate record, the factual foundation is critical.

Why § 2255 matters to professionals and businesses

For many of my clients, the judgment is not the end of the damage. Physicians, executives, pharmacists, and regulated businesses may also be dealing with:

• licensure threats
• exclusion risk
• reimbursement fallout
• contract and employment loss
• private litigation
• reputational collapse

A well-built § 2255 strategy will not solve every collateral problem. But it may shape the client’s ability to fight forward. That is another reason the motion has to be handled with seriousness and technical care.

Frequently asked questions

What is a 2255 motion?

It is the main federal post-conviction motion used to challenge a sentence imposed by a federal court.

Is 2255 the same as a direct appeal?

No. It is a separate collateral proceeding in the sentencing court.

How long do I have to file?

Usually one year from the latest of several statutory trigger dates.

Can I raise ineffective assistance in 2255?

Often yes, and in many cases that is the proper forum.

Can I file multiple 2255 motions?

A second or successive motion is tightly restricted by statute.

Speak with Ronald W. Chapman II about federal post-conviction relief

If you believe your federal conviction or sentence is vulnerable under § 2255, do not waste time guessing about the deadline or filing a generic motion. The first post-conviction filing often matters the most.

I handle federal post-judgment matters nationwide, including complex § 2255 issues arising from healthcare fraud, controlled-substances, white-collar, and other regulated-entity prosecutions.

Call 346-CHAPMAN for a confidential consultation.