Post Conviction

In the criminal justice system, a defendant may continue to challenge his conviction and/or sentence even after he has lost at trial and on appeal.  Every criminal case may be challenged through the post-conviction process in state and federal court.  But the stakes are significantly higher because, having lost at trial and on appeal, the client now has “two strikes” against him.

The post-conviction process is where instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct are explored and litigated.  Only fearless and thorough attorneys can navigate the procedural and substantive issues and successfully enjoin the battle, which is often filled with hostility and defensiveness.

Attorneys at Rudolf Widenhouse have considerable expertise and experience representing clients in the federal and state courts for post-conviction purposes.  Whether filing a motion for appropriate relief in a state superior court or litigating a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court, we bring our best efforts to bear in helping a client in this final assault on his criminal conviction or sentence.

We understand the complex procedures involved, including the technical notions of procedural default, retroactivity, and statutes of limitation.  We endeavor to provide a thorough review of a client’s situation to advise about how to proceed in the post-conviction process.  When we find an issue that may result in a conviction being set aside or a new sentencing hearing ordered, we bring our best efforts to the fore in seeking relief for our clients.

Our Results

Section 2255 Litigation

Every federal criminal defendant, no matter the charge, conviction, or sentence, may seek further review of his case in federal court by filing a motion to vacate his judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2255. This statute provides a federal criminal defendant with the practical equivalent of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Through this process, a federal criminal defendant can seek relief if his conviction and sentence were imposed in violation of the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States, including that the district court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence or that the sentence exceeded the maximum term authorized by law.

Generally speaking, the motion under section 2255 is the vehicle through which a federal criminal defendant can challenge the effectiveness of his trial lawyer or present newly discovered evidence. This procedural device can be a powerful tool for a person who has been convicted in federal court, even if he pled guilty.

Like a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a conviction in state court, there are certain limitations on this procedure. First, the defendant must raise the federal constitutional claim in compliance with the applicable procedural rules. Second, the petition must be filed within one year of the date on which the federal conviction becomes final, which is generally the date on which his appeal is decided. The assistance of a qualified, knowledgeable, and thorough lawyer can be critical in having this motion properly prepared and filed in federal court. This notion is particularly true because a motion under this provision is heard and decided by the same judge who imposed the original sentence.

Our firm brings its considerable experience in litigating these motions for our clients. We will fearlessly face the difficult issues often raised in these situations, including ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. We know the rules and can navigate our way through the minefield so that our clients can have the benefit of this review.

Habeas Corpus

Every criminal defendant in any case, no matter the charge, conviction, or sentence, may seek a review of his case in federal court through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Often called “The Great Writ,” this constitutional guarantee that “cannot be suspended” provides a mechanism for a federal court to review any criminal conviction from a state court.

There are certain limitations on this procedure. First, the defendant must base the claim in the state court on a particular federal constitutional provision, such as the right to counsel or the right to due process of law. Second, the defendant must raise the federal constitutional claim in compliance with the applicable state procedural rules, such as presenting the claim to the highest court in the state. Third, the petition must be filed within one year of the date on which the state conviction becomes final, such as the date on which the defendant’s appeal is decided. The assistance of a qualified, knowledgeable, and thorough lawyer can be critical in having the writ properly prepared and filed in federal court.

Our firm brings its considerable experience to the table in litigating petitions for writs of habeas corpus for our clients. We will fearlessly face the difficult issues often raised in these situations, including ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. We know the rules and can navigate our way through the minefield so that our clients can have the benefit of federal review through use of “The Great Writ.”

Motions for Appropriate Relief (MAR’s)

In the North Carolina court system, a post-conviction challenge to a conviction or sentence, whether after a jury trial or a guilty plea, involves filing a motion for appropriate relief, often called an MAR. This type of litigation is simply what its name implies: a request for whatever relief a defendant seeks, whether a dismissal of all charges, a new trial, or a new sentencing hearing. However, litigating a motion for appropriate relief is not simple. It requires a thorough review of all previous pleadings and hearings, interviews of various witnesses, research into key legal issues, preparing affidavits and supporting documents, and compiling a persuasive and convincing motion.

Our firm brings a full panoply of resources to bear in this effort. We have considerable experience in investigating, preparing, litigating, and winning motions for appropriate relief. We have the fortitude to tackle the tough issues often raised in these situations, including ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. We can marshal whatever newly discovered evidence may exist, including recanted testimony by alleged victims and other witnesses. We zealously advocate for our clients in this type of litigation.