On this page
A “cognizable” claim is one the court is allowed to decide in a § 2255 motion. The statute allows four kinds: the sentence violated the Constitution or federal law, the court had no jurisdiction, the sentence was longer than the law allows, or the sentence is “otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Section 2255 was meant to be as broad as traditional habeas corpus. The Judicial Conference committee that proposed it told Congress that “[t]he motion remedy broadly covers all situations where the sentence is ‘open to collateral attack.’ As a remedy, it is intended to be as broad as habeas corpus.” United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 217 (1952). See also Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 715 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (habeas corpus jurisdiction is “sweeping in its breadth”).
What are the four grounds in § 2255(a)?
A federal prisoner may ask the “court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence” on these grounds:
- (1) “that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States”;
- (2) “that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence”;
- (3) “that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law”; or
- (4) that the sentence “is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962).
Based on this language, courts group § 2255 claims into four categories: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction; (2) the conviction or sentence is unconstitutional; (3) the conviction or sentence violates other (non-constitutional) federal law; and (4) the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.
Do all claims face the same test?
No. Jurisdictional and constitutional claims can be raised as they are.
Claims based on other federal law, or that the sentence is “otherwise subject to collateral attack,” must clear a higher bar. The error must be “a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice” or “an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Hill, 368 U.S. at 428.
What kinds of claims do courts see?
Courts hear a wide range of § 2255 claims. To make them easier to understand, this site sorts them into the four categories above, plus a separate category for ineffective assistance of counsel — a claim that your lawyer’s mistakes hurt your case.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
Common questions
What kinds of claims can I make in a section 2255 motion?
Section 2255(a) lists four: (1) “that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States”; (2) “that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence”; (3) “that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law”; and (4) that the sentence “is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” The language is broad on purpose, so many kinds of claims fit.
This site breaks them into five groups: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction; (2) the conviction or sentence is unconstitutional; (3) the conviction or sentence is unconstitutional because counsel was ineffective; (4) the conviction or sentence violates other federal law; and (5) the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.
Should I hire an attorney to help me with my section 2255 motion?
You do not have to. Many people file on their own. But § 2255 cases have strict deadlines, and most people get only one full motion, so a missed claim may be lost for good. If you can, talk with a lawyer who handles federal post-conviction cases before you file. Book a consultation with Brandon Sample.
Related pages
Cognizable Claims: The Court Lacked Jurisdiction
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates the Constitution
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.