Post-conviction motion preparation, with the vehicle named correctly

The first question is who holds the person in custody, and under whose judgment. The engine answers it from the judgment itself before any research begins, because the answer decides which statute, which court and which clock apply.

• Custody under a state-court judgment: 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2254(a) provides that a federal court "shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."
• Custody under a federal sentence: 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255(a) provides that a prisoner "in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress" claiming that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or on the other grounds the subsection lists, "may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." It is a motion in the sentencing court, not a new habeas case.
• State collateral review. Each state provides its own post-conviction procedure, with its own name, deadline and rules. The engine treats the state motion as its own vehicle, reads the governing state rule text for the court, and never borrows a federal rule to fill a gap in the state one.

The two federal vehicles are not interchangeable. Section 2255(e) says an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply by motion under § 2255 "shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective" to test the legality of the detention. The engine records the choice of vehicle, with its reasons, in a vehicle record reviewed at the first checkpoint.

Both federal vehicles carry a one-year limitation period, and both measure it from the latest of several possible starting points.

For a § 2254 application, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) provides that "A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court," running from the latest of:

• "(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;"
• "(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;"
• "(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or"
• "(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence."

Section 2244(d)(2) then provides that "The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection."

For a § 2255 motion, § 2255(f) provides that "A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section," running from the latest of four dates, beginning with "the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final."

How the engine computes these clocks

Each trigger date is a separate computation, and the engine works out every one that the record supports, not only the first. Each deadline is computed from the documents and the rule text, then, by default, computed twice: a second model recomputes it independently, and any mismatch is resolved by reading the statute, never by averaging. When the answer is ambiguous, the engine takes the earlier reading. Time spent in state collateral review is tracked as its own period with its own start and end dates, drawn from the state court's docket entries, because whether an application was "properly filed" and when it stopped being "pending" are questions the record has to answer.

When the finality date depends on the time for seeking further review, the engine computes that time from the governing rule too, including the period for a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court described on the Supreme Court petitions page. Every result is posted to the docket manager as a dated deadline with its source attached; see what the docket manager tracks.

Illustrative example, fictional court and dates: a conviction in the Example County Superior Court (fictional) becomes final after direct review. A state collateral motion is filed some months later and denied, and the denial is affirmed. The engine records the finality date, the day count used before the state motion, the period the state motion was pending under § 2244(d)(2), and the date the count resumed, and it shows both computations side by side before the deadline is posted.

A § 2254 petition generally cannot be granted until the state courts have had their chance. Section 2254(b)(1) provides that an application "shall not be granted unless it appears that— (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant." Section 2254(c) adds that an applicant is not deemed to have exhausted state remedies "if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented."

The engine builds an exhaustion table for each claim: where the claim was presented, in which filing, at which level of the state courts, and how the state court ruled, with a record citation for each entry. A claim the table cannot trace through the state courts is flagged before strategy, because the answer changes the plan.

For claims a state court decided on the merits, § 2254(d) sets the standard, and it shapes the whole petition. An application "shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."

Because the first prong refers to federal law "as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," the engine's research ladder starts at the top for these claims. It ranks the U.S. Supreme Court's controlling decisions first, reads each one in full, and records each in the Citation Ledger with its quote and pincite. For the second prong, it sets the state court's factual findings against the evidence in the record, page by page. Where an adverse order exists, its findings are set against the record before any strategy is discussed, and points the order did not address are recorded.

Later filings face their own gate. Section 2244(b)(1) provides that "A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." Section 2244(b)(3)(A) requires that, before a second or successive application is filed in the district court, "the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." For federal prisoners, § 2255(h) provides that "A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals."

The engine checks the full procedural history of the conviction at intake, lists every earlier application or motion, and records whether the new filing needs authorization first. That answer goes to the first checkpoint, before any drafting.

An appeal from a final order in these proceedings needs a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), "Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from" the final order in a habeas proceeding where the detention arises out of process issued by a state court, or the final order in a § 2255 proceeding. Section 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate "may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," and § 2253(c)(3) requires it to "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing." Rule 22(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure applies the same requirement on the appellate side.

The engine drafts the request issue by issue, because the certificate is granted issue by issue. The general appellate process is on the appeals page.

Every page of every incoming document is read by vision and transcribed faithfully, every enclosure is logged, and intake is checked against a checksum manifest. The transcripts are compiled into one chronological master record, checked for completeness, and every number, name and date in the draft is checked against it. Post-conviction records are long and old: trial transcripts, pretrial motions, plea records, sentencing records, direct-appeal briefs and opinions, and the state collateral record. Keeping claims alive through every court above is the job of the preservation map, described under preservation in hard cases.

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires showing both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). The engine's element sheet treats each part as its own element, answered only by a paragraph, a record citation, a verified authority and real facts.

Every case citation is pulled from the primary source, read in full, and verified before it can appear in a filing. A case citation that is not in the verified ledger cannot reach the page. The standard each one must meet is the same: from the primary source, read in full, supporting the point it is cited for, and still good law. The most-recent-controlling-statement sweep is a live search, recorded as its own step. Statute and rule citations are exempt from the ledger block, and that exemption is declared; statute text is required from the source before reliance, and it is retrieved from the source. Terms such as exhaustion, collateral review and certificate of appealability are defined under habeas terms defined, and verification is explained on the every case citation verified page.

By default, you approve twice, and the whole filing gets a final read before it ships; each approval, or the client's recorded standing instruction to proceed, is stamped in the record. The standing instruction never lifts a hold, and the candid analysis still runs. For a law firm, the attorneys of record supervise the work, sign the filing, and remain responsible for it. The engine is built to support those duties; it never discharges them.

Illustration, fictional matter. Every name, court and date is invented.

POST-CONVICTION · State of Example (fictional) v. Rowe (fictional)
vehicle ............ state post-conviction petition, then § 2254 if denied
clock (federal) .... one year from finality · 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)
tolling ............ state petition pending → § 2244(d)(2) · watch set
exhaustion map ..... claim 1: raised (trial, appeal) · decided (appeal)
                     claim 2: not yet raised → state petition first
IAC elements ....... deficient performance: answered · prejudice: answered

Illustration, fictional matter.

POST-CONVICTION · State of Example (fictional) v. Rowe (fictional)

vehicle

1. state post-conviction petition
2. § 2254 if denied

clock (federal)

one year from finality · 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)

tolling: state petition pending → § 2244(d)(2) · watch set

exhaustion map

trialappeal claim 1raisedraised · decided claim 2not yet raised → state petition first

IAC elements

deficient performance: answeredprejudice: answered

What is the difference between § 2254 and § 2255? Section 2254 is federal habeas for a person in custody under a state-court judgment. Section 2255 is a motion by a federal prisoner to vacate, set aside or correct a federal sentence. This is general information, not legal advice.

How long is there to file a § 2254 petition or a § 2255 motion? Generally one year. For a § 2254 petition, the year usually runs from when the state judgment became final, and time while a properly filed state post-conviction application is pending does not count (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)). For a § 2255 motion, it runs from the latest of the dates § 2255(f) lists, usually when the judgment of conviction became final. The governing text controls. This is general information, not legal advice.

Can the engine help with state post-conviction? It works from the official rule book of the court the petition is filed in. 3,400 courts are matched to their official court rules, in 57 U.S. jurisdictions, as of 7 October 2026, and the engine will not proceed on a court whose book is missing.

Start a request (opens the main site) on Legal Ops Depot's main site. Legal Ops Depot is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.

Related: Appeals · Supreme Court petitions · Glossary: exhaustion