Federal post-conviction relief when direct appeals are exhausted—and constitutional errors undermined the fairness of the process.
Inflexible deadlines apply. Start your review today.
Admitted to Practice In
Delay can create additional obstacles. The safest approach is to act as early as possible to evaluate your filing window.
1 Year
Typically due within one year of the federal judgment becoming final or other triggering events.
1 Year
Challenges state convictions in federal court. Strict one-year limit after state remedies are exhausted.
Inflexible
Federal courts strictly enforce filing rules. Missing a window by even one day can be fatal to your case.
Federal post-conviction relief depends on where the conviction occurred. Navigating these paths requires a deep understanding of federal procedural law and court-specific rules.
Used to challenge a federal conviction or sentence. Filed in the court where the conviction occurred, often focusing on constitutional or jurisdictional defects.
A petition to challenge a state conviction in federal court after state remedies (appeals and habeas) have been fully pursued and exhausted.
Federal habeas litigation is deadline-driven and constrained by standards that severely limit what federal courts can review.
Habeas relief may offer a last-resort pathway to challenge unlawful detention when all other direct options have been exhausted.
Specialist in Federal Post-Conviction & Habeas Litigation
Mark Yurachek has focused his work on federal habeas corpus and post-conviction litigation for over two decades. He evaluates federal habeas matters with careful attention to procedural posture, the existing record, and the claims that can realistically be pursued.
Federal post-conviction litigation is highly procedural and technical. It requires a disciplined approach to issue selection, focused on claims that are legally available and supported by the record.
Mark has extensive experience navigating 2254 and 2255 petitions. He understands that what happened at trial is only part of the story—how and when it was raised can matter just as much.
Every case is unique, but our strategic approach ensures every potential avenue for relief is thoroughly evaluated before the court.
We identify jurisdiction (state or federal), direct appeal status, prior filings, and strict procedural deadlines.
Federal work depends on transcripts, motions, orders, and prior appellate decisions. The record is the foundation.
Disciplined issue selection focused on claims that are legally available, supported by the record, and justify relief.
Detailed written submissions with strict formatting and citation expectations to meet technical court requirements.
Relief may include a new trial or resentencing. If denied, appellate review may be possible depending on posture.
Federal habeas is not a second appeal. It is a technical path focused on serious defects that render a judgment unlawful under federal law.
Highly fact-specific claims requiring analysis of whether counsel’s performance fell below constitutional standards.
Challenges based on due process, Sixth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment issues that undermined trial fairness.
Addressing jurisdictional or sentencing problems that make a conviction unlawful depending on case posture.
Many claims are restricted if they weren't raised earlier or if the record was not properly preserved.
Federal courts operate under deferential standards that limit their ability to review certain state court decisions.
Strict adherence to filing rules and deadlines is mandatory. Missing a requirement can lead to summary dismissal.
"Mark was communicative throughout the process, and he really cared about my case and getting results. He kept all expectations grounded in reality. This is the guy you want on your side!"
Kalen