Federal Habeas Corpus

Federal habeas corpus actions challenge a conviction or sentence on the ground that it was obtained or imposed in violation of the federal constitution. Where the conviction or sentence arises from a state court proceeding, habeas is available via 28 U.S.C. §2254. Where the conviction or sentence arises from a federal court proceeding, habeas is available via 28 U.S.C. §2255.

A habeas court can reach the merits of a constitutional claim only if the claim has been preserved. If the issue was not raised in a timely way, or if the claim was not fully perfected, a habeas court cannot grant relief based on the violation. This is because the procedural bar stands as an adequate and independent ground aside from the merits of the claim to deny relief. Also, with respect to challenges of a state court conviction or sentence, before a federal habeas action can be brought, the petitioner must fully and fairly present and exhaust the same claim to the state system. This may be through a state direct appeal or state postconviction action. Where the state court reaches but rejects the merits of a constitutional issue, a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief only if the court determines that the state court merits ruling was an unreasonable application of constitutional law. Where the state court has declined to reach the merits of the claim because the court finds a procedural bar, then a federal court may grant habeas relief only if there is cause for the procedural default and prejudice as a result of it.

As stated, habeas relief is available only for federal constitutional violations. While this is narrower than what may be raised in an appeal, habeas is broader than an appeal in so far as once a colorable claim is pled, a petitioner is entitled to have an evidentiary hearing. This means that a habeas petitioner may allege facts not in the record and he may use non-record material to prove that his or her constitutional rights have been violated.

Because habeas corpus has the potential to deal with non-record facts and circumstances, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are frequently raised as constitutional violations. So, too, are the acts and omissions of trial counsel framed as elements of ineffective assistance of counsel. Other examples of violations of federal constitutional rights that may be litigated in habeas are claims connected with race discrimination, juror misconduct, double jeopardy questions, speedy trial rights, pre-indictment delay issues, competency to stand trial questions, judicial misconduct, the scope of cross-examination, the rights to produce and present exculpatory evidence and present a defense, questions concerning compelled testimony, the admission of involuntary or improperly obtained statements, and other fair trial rights. Guilty pleas are often challenged in habeas as being constitutionally involuntary or as being entered without the effective assistance of counsel. Claims related to the Fourth Amendment and unlawful searches and seizures are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings.

It is important to note that, except under very unusual circumstances, an individual is allowed one and only one opportunity to seek federal habeas corpus relief. Successive petitions are for the most part barred.

Federal Statute Of Limitations

There is a one year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas corpus relief.  The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (hereinafter the "AEDPA") became effective on April 24, 1996 and amended 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) by imposing a one-year statute of limitations for the filing of a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254.  The practical effect of this provision is to require an individual in state custody who seeks federal habeas corpus relief to file the individual’s federal habeas corpus petition within one year of the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.  Before an individual in state custody can pursue federal habeas corpus relief, that individual must exhaust state remedies, which is usually the filing and the litigation of a state habeas corpus action.  While the individual in state custody exhausts the available state remedies, the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) is tolled.