Source: https://sentencing.net/rules-governing-section-2255-proceedings
Timestamp: 2019-11-22 02:23:52
Document Index: 565778783

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2']

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings | Section 2255
Below is the exact rule text for the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. There are a total of 12 rules in the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Below each rule are Advisory Committee notes. The
Advisory Committee notes are written by the drafters of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. If you are looking for a 28 U.S.C. 2255 form, you can access that here: 28 U.S.C. 2255 Form.
A .pdf version of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings can also be accessed here: 2255 Rules.
First, habeas corpus is a separate civil action and not a further step in the criminal case in which petitioner is sentenced (Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 559 (1883)). It is not a determination of guilt or innocence of the charge upon which petitioner was sentenced. Where a prisoner sustains his right to discharge in habeas corpus, it is usually because some right-such as lack of counsel-has been denied which reflects no determination of his guilt or innocence but affects solely the fairness of his earlier criminal trial. Even under the broad power in the statute “to dispose of the party as law and justice require” (28 U.S.C.A., sec. 461), the court or judge is by no means in the same advantageous position in habeas corpus to do justice as would be so if the matter were determined in the criminal proceeding (see Medley, petitioner, 134 U.S. 160, 174 (1890)). For instance, the judge (by habeas corpus) cannot grant a new trial in the criminal case. Since the motion remedy is in the criminal proceeding, this section 2 affords the opportunity and expressly gives the broad powers to set aside the judgment and to “discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.”
(As amended Pub. L. 94–426, §2(3), (4), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1334 ; Apr. 28, 1982, eff. Aug. 1, 1982; Apr. 26, 2004, eff. Dec. 1, 2004.)
[Rule 35] provides for the correction of an “illegal sentence” without regard to the reasons why that sentence is illegal and contains not a single word to support the Court’s conclusion that only a sentence illegal by reason of the punishment it imposes is “illegal” within the meaning of the Rule. I would have thought that a sentence imposed in an illegal manner-whether the amount or form of the punishment meted out constitutes an additional violation of law or not-would be recognized as an “illegal sentence” under any normal reading of the English language.
1976-Subd. (b). Pub. L. 94–426, §2(3), inserted “substantially” after “The motion shall be in”, and struck out requirement that the motion follow the prescribed form.
(As amended Pub. L. 94–426, §2(6), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1335 ; Pub. L. 94–577, §2(a)(2), (b)(2), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2730 , 2731; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 26, 2004, eff. Dec. 1, 2004; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)
(As amended Pub. L. 94–426, §2(9), (10), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1335 ; Apr. 26, 2004, eff. Dec. 1, 2004.)
(As amended Pub. L. 94–426, §2(12), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1335 ; Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Apr. 26, 2004, eff. Dec. 1, 2004.)
1976-Pub. L. 94–426 inserted “, and to the extent the district court has established standards and criteria for the performance of such duties,” after “rule of the district court”.
Also read our article 28 U.S.C. 2255 to learn more about 2255 petitions.