Constitutional Claims in a § 2255 Motion

Q: The government withheld evidence that would have helped me. Is that a due process violation I can raise in a § 2255 motion?

It can be. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses evidence favorable to the defense that is material to guilt or punishment. That can support a § 2255 claim. Watch the deadline: the one-year clock may start when the evidence could have been discovered. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4). If you have learned the government held back favorable evidence, book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk it through.

On this page

If your conviction or sentence violates the U.S. Constitution, you can raise that in a § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Common examples are double jeopardy (being punished twice for the same offense), the prosecution hiding favorable evidence, a broken plea deal, and violations of the right to a lawyer.

The Constitution protects people in many ways, so many kinds of constitutional claims can be raised. Below are examples, grouped by the right involved. Each case turns on its own facts.

Fifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause bars, among other things, multiple punishments for the same offense. In January 2026, the Supreme Court held that one act that violates both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j) can support only one conviction. Barrett v. United States, No. 24-5774 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2026).

United States v. Marroquin, 885 F.2d 1240, 1245-46 (5th Cir. 1989). A claim of multiple sentences in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is cognizable in a §2255 proceeding.

Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.

United States v. Atkins, 834 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1987). A claim of multiple convictions in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is cognizable in §2255 proceedings.

United States v. Silvers, 90 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 1996). Section 2255 relief granted when district court violated Double Jeopardy Clause by resentencing defendant on conviction for which defendant had fully discharged his sentence.

Brown v. United States, 34 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 1994). Section 2255 relief was appropriate when district court violated Double Jeopardy Clause by failing to merge defendant’s two counts for sentencing, when both counts were based on the same criminal actions. See also Costa v. United States, 904 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1990)(same).

Fifth Amendment: Due Process

The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Many § 2255 claims rest on this promise. Here is a small sample.

Ferrera v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006). Section 2255 relief was proper when the government violated due process by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence (a key witness recantation) that would have kept the defendant from pleading guilty.

United States v. Pelullo, 105 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 1997). Section 2255 relief was appropriate when the government failed to disclose Brady exculpatory material (impeachment evidence), violating due process. See also Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2005)(same).

United States v. Weintraub, 871 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1989). Due process violation was cognizable under section 2255 when the government withheld police reports that refuted the government witness’s account of the quantity of drugs involved in the underlying crime; Brady violation.

United States v. Biberfeld, 957 F.2d 98 (3rd Cir. 1991). When the government presents perjurious testimony, due process claim cognizable in §2255 proceedings arises.

United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1336 (9th Cir. 1993). Due process implicated where government breached plea agreement by failing to recommend a sentence below the mandatory minimum, as agreed. Section 2255 relief was proper.

United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 989 (5th Cir. 1996). Due process requires that a plea of guilty be a voluntary, knowing and intelligent act. When the district court misinformed the defendant as to the maximum possible sentence, due process was violated and the plea was subject to a section 2255 challenge.

Shukwit v. United States 973 F.2d 903, 904 (11th Cir. 1992). Due process was violated when the defendant’s sentence was based on false information in the presentence report, rendering the sentence subject to §2255 collateral attack.

Sixth Amendment: Claims Other Than Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980). Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when police planted a paid informant in defendant’s jail cell in order to extract pretrial statements. Section 2255 relief was proper when the district court admitted the statements at trial.

United States v. Fuller, 971 F.2d 993 (9th Cir. 1991). Sixth Amendment was violated when the defendant was denied the right to counsel during plea negotiations. Due process was also violated because the denial of counsel rendered the defendant unable to understand the charges and consequences. Section 2255 relief was proper.

United States v. Fulton, 5 F.3d 604 (2d Cir. 1993). A per se prejudicial conflict of interest arose, and violated the Sixth Amendment, when government witness reported that he had sold heroin to defendant’s counsel. Section 2255 relief (a new trial) was granted.

Quintero v. United States, 33 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1994). When counsel, who was retained by unknown third parties to defend drug conspiracy defendant, urged defendant to reject plea and to not become a “snitch,” section 2255 evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether Sixth Amendment was violated.

United States v. Cook, 45 F.3d 388 (10th Cir. 1995). Sixth Amendment violation was cognizable under §2255 when district court ordered defense counsel to advise his client’s co-defendant to comply with a plea agreement. Conflict of interest was established.

United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011). Claim that defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was cognizable in section 2255 proceedings.

Common questions

I was convicted or sentenced twice for the same crime. Is that double jeopardy, and can I raise it in a § 2255 motion?

It may be. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars multiple punishments for the same offense, unless Congress clearly authorized them. Courts decide whether two counts are the “same offense” by asking whether each requires proof of a fact the other does not. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). Double jeopardy claims can be raised in § 2255 proceedings, though procedural default rules may apply if the claim was not raised on appeal.

The government withheld evidence that would have helped me. Is that a due process violation I can raise in a § 2255 motion?

It can be. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses evidence favorable to the defense that is material to guilt or punishment. That can support a § 2255 claim. Watch the deadline: the one-year clock may start when the evidence could have been discovered. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4).

If you have learned the government held back favorable evidence, book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk it through.

I pleaded guilty because of false information from the government or the court. Can I file a § 2255 motion?

Possibly. A guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. If it was based on false or misleading information — for example, being told the wrong maximum sentence — it may not meet that standard, and a § 2255 challenge may be possible.

The government put a paid informant in my jail cell after I was indicted and used what I said against me. Is that a constitutional violation?

It can be. After you are formally charged, the Sixth Amendment protects your right to a lawyer. When the government deliberately uses a paid informant to get incriminating statements from a charged defendant without his lawyer, and uses them at trial, it violates the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980).

My lawyer also represented my co-defendant, and I got a worse deal. Can I raise that in a § 2255 motion?

Possibly. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes a lawyer without a conflict of interest. Representing co-defendants is not automatically a violation. But if your lawyer had an actual conflict that hurt how he represented you, you may have a claim. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348-50 (1980). Book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk it through.

Cognizable Claims: Overview

Cognizable Claims: The Court Lacked Jurisdiction

Cognizable Claims: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Pretrial

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Trial

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Sentencing

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Appeal

Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates Federal Law

Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence is Otherwise Subject to Collateral Attack

Questions about your case? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.