⚠️ Federal Post-Conviction Relief Has Strict Deadlines That Cannot Be Extended.
A § 2255 motion must generally be filed within one year of the date your conviction becomes final. If your trial counsel failed to raise critical issues, missed suppression motions, advised you poorly about a plea, or fell short on sentencing mitigation, those claims may support relief — but only if you act within the limitations period.
Fill out this form now. You speak directly with a Connecticut federal post-conviction defense attorney — not intake, not a paralegal — who will review what happened in your case and tell you whether you have viable grounds.
In federal post-conviction practice, time isn’t neutral. It’s the deadline.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm represents individuals seeking federal post-conviction relief in the District of Connecticut, including § 2255 motions for collateral attack on convictions and sentences, sentence reduction motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), and related post-conviction litigation. Contact us at (860) 294-4384 for a confidential consultation.
Why Marin & Murphy for Federal Post-Conviction Relief in Connecticut
Federal post-conviction practice is fundamentally different from trial work. It requires a different skill set, a different analytical framework, and an attorney who can evaluate both what happened at trial and what should have happened — then present that analysis under the strictest procedural constraints in the federal system. Identifying the strongest claims and presenting them with precision is not optional. It is the entire discipline.
Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy is admitted to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bar No. 31712) and holds simultaneous active federal bar admissions in D. Conn., D. Mass., and D.R.I. — enabling representation across all three Southern New England federal districts. Both Murphy and Attorney Matthew T. Marin are members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the national professional organization for federal criminal defense practitioners.
Murphy has litigated post-conviction cases at the highest level of complexity. The Providence Journal reported extensively on her representation in the a wrongful conviction case — where a defendant who spent decades in prison for a 1985 conviction was represented in sustained litigation challenging forensic evidence, overcoming prosecutorial objections, and advancing ineffective-assistance arguments. That case involved exactly the skills that federal § 2255 motions demand: forensic literacy, constitutional advocacy, record analysis, and the persistence to pursue relief through multiple rounds of litigation.
Murphy’s trial-level experience directly informs her evaluation of whether prior counsel’s performance met constitutional standards — the central question in most § 2255 cases. The Providence Journal reported her role as lead counsel in a murder acquittal on murder and firearm charges — a case involving co-defendants serving life sentences and prosecution by the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office. That kind of trial experience is essential for evaluating whether trial counsel in another case conducted adequate pretrial investigation, filed appropriate suppression motions, advised the client properly about plea consequences, and fully developed sentencing mitigation arguments.
As lead editor and contributing author of A Practical Guide to Trying DUI Cases in Rhode Island (2nd Edition 2024, MCLE New England) — the state’s definitive DUI litigation resource — Murphy has demonstrated the analytical rigor that complex post-conviction briefing demands: the ability to construct sustained legal arguments grounded in the record, challenge evidentiary foundations, and present constitutional claims with the precision that collateral review requires.
Attorney Matthew T. Marin has established constitutional precedent that directly informs post-conviction analysis. In State v. Corcoran (2022), Marin secured suppression of incriminating statements at the trial court level in a case that resulted in a Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling establishing statewide Miranda precedent — the type of constitutional issue that frequently appears in both direct appeals and § 2255 claims. In State v. Zimmerman (2015), Marin originated the constitutional challenge that forced the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office to revise the DUI rights form used in every arrest statewide. Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly has published six standalone editorial features on Marin’s cases across four consecutive years and has quoted both attorneys on constitutional issues affecting criminal practice, including appellate challenges to evidence admissibility.
Both attorneys gained early-career prosecution experience through the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office, and Murphy prosecuted misdemeanor criminal matters as a Town Solicitor for Rhode Island municipalities. That experience inside the government provides insight into how prosecutors build their cases and respond to appellate and post-conviction challenges — including how they evaluate claims of trial error, ineffective assistance, and newly discovered evidence.
Murphy has been selected to Super Lawyers for 14 consecutive years (Rising Star 2012–2018, Super Lawyers 2019–2025). Marin has been selected for 11 consecutive years (Rising Star 2014–2018, Super Lawyers 2019–2024) and has been named to the National Trial Lawyers Top 100. The firm has earned 451 five-star Google reviews with a 5.0 rating.
We bring both the trial-level insight and the post-conviction analytical discipline that § 2255 motions and collateral review require. Call (860) 294-4384 for a confidential consultation.
Post-Conviction Deadlines Are Strict
Federal post-conviction relief is governed by strict procedural deadlines. For § 2255 motions, you generally have one year from the date your conviction becomes final to file. Your conviction becomes final when the Supreme Court denies certiorari or when the time for seeking certiorari expires, typically 90 days after the Second Circuit issues its mandate. Limited exceptions exist for newly discovered evidence and for new constitutional rules the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review.
If you were recently convicted and have not yet pursued direct appellate review, separate deadlines apply. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment. That deadline is jurisdictional. If you intend to pursue direct appellate review, you should consult an attorney who handles federal appellate work immediately. § 2255 collateral review generally becomes available after direct appeal has been exhausted or the time to pursue it has expired.
Do not assume your trial attorney will handle every stage of post-conviction proceedings, and do not assume you have time to figure this out. The procedural rules in federal post-conviction practice are unforgiving.
The § 2255 One-Year Limitations Period Cannot Be Extended in Most Cases. If you believe constitutional error, ineffective assistance of counsel, or newly discovered evidence affected your conviction or sentence, the limitations period is generally one year from the date your conviction became final. Miss it without a recognized exception and your post-conviction options narrow significantly. Call (860) 294-4384 — Available Now for Urgent Consultations Every conversation is protected by attorney-client privilege.
Post-Conviction Relief Under §2255
When a direct appeal is not available or has been exhausted, 28 U.S.C. §2255 provides a separate mechanism to challenge a federal conviction or sentence. A §2255 motion is filed in the same district court that entered the judgment, in this case the District of Connecticut in New Haven, Hartford, or Bridgeport.
A §2255 motion can challenge a conviction or sentence on the grounds that it was imposed in violation of the Constitution or federal law, that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence exceeded the legal maximum, or that the judgment is otherwise subject to collateral attack. In practice, the most commonly litigated §2255 claims fall into several categories.
Ineffective assistance of counsel is the most frequently raised ground. Under the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different. This applies to every critical stage of the proceeding, including pretrial investigation, plea negotiation, trial, and sentencing. Claims of ineffective assistance are typically reserved for §2255 proceedings rather than direct appeal because they often depend on facts outside the trial record.
Newly discovered evidence can support relief if it was not discoverable through due diligence before trial and is sufficiently compelling that it would likely produce a different result. DNA evidence is the most powerful form of newly discovered evidence, but financial records, recanting witnesses, or evidence of government misconduct may also qualify.
Sentencing errors that rise to a constitutional level, including errors in the application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, improper calculation of the offense level or criminal history category, or reliance on constitutionally impermissible factors. Sentencing errors arise frequently in white-collar cases, including Connecticut federal embezzlement defense matters, where loss calculations and restitution amounts directly drive the Guidelines range.
Changes in law can provide grounds for relief if the Supreme Court has recognized a new constitutional right and made it retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
A §2255 motion is not a second appeal. Issues that were raised and rejected on direct appeal generally cannot be relitigated. Issues that could have been raised on appeal but were not are subject to procedural default and can only be overcome by showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence.
Believe Your Trial Attorney Failed to Raise Critical Issues? Ineffective assistance of counsel is the most common ground for § 2255 relief. Whether your counsel conducted adequate investigation, filed appropriate motions, advised you properly about the plea, or fully developed sentencing mitigation — every critical stage is subject to constitutional review. Call (860) 294-4384 — Confidential Consultations Available D. Conn.-admitted defense counsel with post-conviction DNA litigation experience.
The Record That Drives § 2255 Cases
Federal § 2255 cases are driven by the record — but the record is broader than what’s in the trial transcript. Effective post-conviction analysis requires meticulous review of transcripts, motions, rulings, jury instructions, sentencing memoranda, and the Presentence Investigation Report, combined with investigation into what happened outside the courtroom.
For §2255 motions, the record analysis is often broader. The attorney may need to investigate what happened outside the courtroom, including communications between the defendant and trial counsel, investigative steps that were not taken, witnesses who were not called, and legal arguments that were not raised. This work often requires obtaining the trial attorney’s file and conducting an independent review of the case.
In cases involving drug charges, drug conspiracy, or federal conspiracy charges more broadly, record issues frequently involve cooperation agreements, proffer sessions, and the reliability of cooperating witness testimony. In fraud cases — including wire fraud, securities fraud, and healthcare fraud — the analysis may focus on the adequacy of counsel’s understanding of complex financial evidence. In Connecticut federal firearms cases, suppression issues and the sufficiency of evidence linking the defendant to the weapon are common appellate grounds.
The Practical Mechanics of § 2255 Practice
Post-conviction work requires a comprehensive review of the trial record and all prior proceedings — not just the transcript but the docket sheet, every motion filed, every ruling entered, and the sentencing record. The attorney evaluates whether constitutional violations occurred, whether trial counsel’s performance met Strickland standards, and whether the procedural rules permit the claims to be raised.
For §2255 cases, the attorney must also evaluate the performance of trial counsel. This is not about assigning blame. It is about identifying whether the representation met constitutional standards at every critical juncture, from the initial investigation through sentencing. Did counsel conduct an adequate pretrial investigation? Were viable suppression motions filed? Was the client properly advised about the consequences of a plea? Were sentencing mitigation arguments fully developed?
If an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the attorney must be prepared to present testimony and evidence outside the trial record. This can include testimony from the defendant, from trial counsel, from expert witnesses, and from fact witnesses who were never called at trial.
§ 2255 motions are filed in the District of Connecticut and reviewed by the district court that entered the underlying judgment. Briefs must comply with the Local Rules of the District of Connecticut and the procedural standards set forth in the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Motions are evaluated on the strength of the record, the constitutional basis for the claim, and whether the procedural rules permit collateral review of the issue.
Where § 2255 Motions Originate in Connecticut
§ 2255 motions in Connecticut originate from convictions at one of the three D. Conn. courthouses, and the trial record from that courthouse drives every issue a § 2255 motion can raise. Convictions tried at the Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building generate the underlying record reviewed by the district court (see our Hartford federal criminal defense lawyer page), while cases tried at the Richard C. Lee Courthouse in New Haven (see our New Haven federal criminal defense lawyer page) and the Brien McMahon Federal Building in Bridgeport (see our Bridgeport federal criminal defense lawyer page) generate their own underlying records. White-collar and securities convictions involving Lower Fairfield County defendants (see our Stamford federal criminal defense lawyer page) typically arise from trials in Bridgeport or New Haven. All four of these trial courts are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, whose post-conviction unit handles the government’s response to § 2255 motions. Our broader Connecticut white-collar criminal defense practice handles cases across all of these origin venues, and for clients whose cases were tried in the neighboring district, we also handle Rhode Island federal post-conviction matters.
Talk to a Federal Defense Attorney Who Has Litigated Post-Conviction Cases. Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and has litigated post-conviction DNA cases covered by the Providence Journal. If you believe your federal conviction or sentence was the product of legal error, a confidential consultation is the first step. Call (860) 294-4384 — Available for Consultations 24/7
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline for filing a §2255 motion?
You generally have one year from the date your conviction becomes final. Your conviction becomes final when the Supreme Court denies certiorari or when the time for seeking certiorari expires. Limited exceptions exist for newly discovered evidence or new constitutional rules made retroactively applicable.
Can I raise issues in a §2255 motion that were not raised at trial?
Yes, and this is frequently the purpose of a §2255 motion. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which challenge your trial attorney’s performance, are typically raised for the first time in §2255 proceedings because they depend on facts outside the trial record. However, issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are subject to procedural default unless you can show cause and prejudice.
When is § 2255 the right post-conviction remedy?
§ 2255 is the primary mechanism for federal prisoners in custody to challenge a conviction or sentence on grounds that it was imposed in violation of the Constitution or federal law, that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence exceeded the legal maximum, or that the judgment is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Common claims include ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, constitutional violations, and sentencing errors that rise to a constitutional level.
What happens if my plea agreement included an appeal waiver?
Many federal plea agreements in Connecticut include waivers of appellate and § 2255 rights. However, not all waivers are enforceable, and certain issues — including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the plea itself and challenges based on changes in law — may survive an otherwise valid waiver. An experienced attorney can evaluate whether your waiver forecloses the issues you want to raise.
What does federal post-conviction representation cost?
§ 2255 motions are document-intensive and require substantial attorney time. The cost depends on the complexity of the case, the length of the trial record, the number of issues, and whether an evidentiary hearing is required. We provide fee estimates after reviewing the case materials and the trial record.
What is the difference between a direct appeal and a § 2255 motion?
A direct appeal challenges legal errors that appear on the trial record and is filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals — a procedural pathway separate from § 2255 collateral review. A § 2255 motion is filed in the district court that entered the judgment, and can raise issues outside the trial record, including ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. Different deadlines, procedures, and standards apply to each. Our practice focuses on § 2255 motions and other post-conviction litigation in the District of Connecticut.
Contact Marin & Murphy for a Confidential Consultation
If you have been convicted in the District of Connecticut and believe constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, or other legal errors affected your case, do not wait. The deadlines in federal post-conviction practice are strict and missing them can permanently eliminate your options.
We handle federal post-conviction matters for individuals convicted of serious federal offenses in Connecticut, including drug trafficking, drug conspiracy, fraud, firearms offenses, money laundering, tax fraud, bank fraud, child pornography, and federal violent crimes, including murder. We will review your trial record, evaluate potential constitutional and procedural issues, and advise you candidly on whether your case presents viable grounds for § 2255 relief or other post-conviction remedies.
Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bar No. 31712). Contact Marin & Murphy Law Firm at (860) 294-4384 for a confidential consultation. For an overview of all federal charge types, see our Connecticut Federal Criminal Defense Attorney page. For sentencing-specific issues, see our Connecticut Federal Sentencing page.
