Yes! You can use AI to fill out AO 243 (Rev. 09/17), Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255)
AO 243 is the standard motion form for seeking post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from a federal conviction or sentence. It is filed in the U.S. District Court that entered the judgment and requires the movant to list every ground for relief and the supporting facts, along with information about direct appeals and prior post-conviction filings. The form is important because § 2255 motions are subject to strict procedural rules, including a one-year statute of limitations and limits on raising new grounds later. The movant must sign under penalty of perjury and may need to address timeliness and prior litigation history to avoid dismissal.
Our AI automatically handles information lookup, data retrieval, formatting, and form filling.
It takes less than a minute to fill out AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion using our AI form filling.
Securely upload your data. Information is encrypted in transit and deleted immediately after the form is filled out.
Form specifications
| Form name: | AO 243 (Rev. 09/17), Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255) |
| Number of pages: | 13 |
| Filled form examples: | Form AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion Examples |
| Language: | English |
| Categories: | litigation forms, federal forms |
Instafill Demo: filling out a legal form in seconds
How to Fill Out AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion Online for Free in 2026
Are you looking to fill out a AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION form online quickly and accurately? Instafill.ai offers the #1 AI-powered PDF filling software of 2026, allowing you to complete your AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION form in just 37 seconds or less.
Follow these steps to fill out your AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION form online using Instafill.ai:
- 1 Confirm eligibility and venue: verify you are in federal custody (or facing a future federal sentence) and identify the U.S. District Court that entered the judgment you are challenging.
- 2 Enter case and custody information: provide your name as used in the criminal case, district, criminal docket/case number, place of confinement, and prisoner number.
- 3 Complete conviction and sentencing details: fill in the judgment date, sentencing date, sentence length, nature of the crime/counts, plea, trial type (if any), and whether you testified.
- 4 Provide appellate and prior post-conviction history: indicate whether you appealed, list appellate court/case details and issues raised, note any Supreme Court certiorari petition, and disclose any prior motions/petitions and their outcomes.
- 5 State your grounds for relief (Grounds One–Four): for each ground, write the specific supporting facts (no legal citations), and answer whether the issue was raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings, including results and any appeals from denials.
- 6 Answer remaining procedural questions: disclose any new grounds not previously presented, any currently pending cases, attorney information at each stage, multiple indictments/sentences, and any future sentence to be served.
- 7 Address timeliness and finalize: if the conviction became final more than one year ago, explain why the § 2255 limitations period does not bar the motion; specify requested relief, sign and date under penalty of perjury, and prepare copies for filing with the Clerk (and include in forma pauperis materials if requesting fee/cost relief).
Our AI-powered system ensures each field is filled out correctly, reducing errors and saving you time.
Why Choose Instafill.ai for Your Fillable AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion Form?
Speed
Complete your AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion in as little as 37 seconds.
Up-to-Date
Always use the latest 2026 AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion form version.
Cost-effective
No need to hire expensive lawyers.
Accuracy
Our AI performs 10 compliance checks to ensure your form is error-free.
Security
Your personal information is protected with bank-level encryption.
Frequently Asked Questions About Form AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion
This form is used by a person in federal custody to ask the sentencing federal court to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal conviction or sentence. It is a request for post-conviction relief based on violations of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.
You must be serving a sentence under a federal court judgment (or challenging a federal sentence that will be served in the future). This form is not for challenging state convictions.
You must file it in the United States District Court that entered the judgment you are challenging. The form instructs you to send the original and copies to the Clerk of that court at the address listed/filled in on the form.
No. The instructions state you may challenge the judgment entered by only one court in this motion. If you want to challenge a different judgment (even in the same district but a different division/judge), you must file a separate motion.
No. The form specifically says you do not need to cite law and should not argue or cite law in the âSupporting factsâ boxes. If you want to make legal arguments, you must submit them in a separate memorandum (which may be subject to local page limits).
You should provide the court name and location that entered the judgment, the criminal docket/case number (if known), the date of judgment and sentencing (if known), the length of sentence, and the nature of the crime/counts. If you do not know an item, provide your best estimate or indicate it is unknown.
Check the box for your plea (not guilty, guilty, or nolo contendere) and explain mixed pleas if you pled differently to different counts. If you went to trial, check whether it was a jury trial or judge-only trial, and indicate whether you testified at any hearing or trial.
If you appealed, list the appellate court, docket number (if known), the result and date, any citation (if known), and the grounds/issues you raised. If you filed a Supreme Court certiorari petition, you must also provide the docket number (if known), result, date, citation (if known), and grounds raised.
You must disclose any prior motions, petitions, or applications concerning the same judgment, including where they were filed, what they were, the grounds raised, whether there was an evidentiary hearing, and the results. If you did not appeal a denial, the form asks you to briefly explain why.
The form provides space for four grounds, and you may attach additional pages if you have more. The form warns you to include all grounds and supporting facts now, because failing to raise a ground may bar you from presenting additional grounds later.
State specific factsâwho did what, when, where, and how it affected your caseâwithout legal argument or citations. Include enough detail for the court to understand the claim and the factual basis for it.
The form is gathering your case history and whether the issue was previously presented to other courts. If you did not raise an issue earlier, you must explain why in the spaces provided.
If your judgment became final over one year ago, you must explain why the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not bar your motion. The form lists possible starting dates for the one-year period (finality, removal of a government impediment, a newly recognized retroactive Supreme Court right, or newly discovered facts with due diligence).
Yes. The instructions say you may request in forma pauperis status by completing the last page of the form and submitting a certificate signed by an officer at your institution showing the amount of money the institution is holding for you.
You must sign the motion and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct. You also fill in the date you placed the motion in the prison mailing system (month/day/year), which is important for documenting when you mailed it.
Compliance AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion
Validation Checks by Instafill.ai
1
Validates single-judgment scope (one court/judgment per motion)
Checks that the submission challenges a judgment entered by only one court, consistent with the formâs instruction that a movant may challenge only one courtâs judgment per motion. This includes verifying that the âcourt which entered the judgmentâ (Q1) is singular and that grounds/relief requested do not reference multiple districts/courts as separate judgments. This matters because multi-judgment filings are procedurally improper and can cause mis-docketing or dismissal. If validation fails, the system should flag the filing for correction or require separate motions per judgment.
2
Ensures required case identification fields are present (District, Movant name, Case/Docket No.)
Verifies that the United States District Court âDistrict,â the movantâs name (under which convicted), and the criminal docket/case number (Q1(b) or header) are provided at least in one location on the form. These identifiers are essential to route the motion to the correct court and link it to the correct criminal case. Missing identifiers can prevent docketing and service on the government. If validation fails, the submission should be rejected as incomplete or routed to a manual review queue with a request for missing information.
3
Validates confinement information completeness (Place of Confinement and Prisoner Number)
Checks that âPlace of Confinementâ and âPrisoner No.â are completed and not left blank. This information is needed for prisoner mailbox rule timing, correspondence, and verifying custody status for § 2255 eligibility. Incomplete confinement data can delay processing and create uncertainty about filing date and custody. If validation fails, prompt the filer to provide the facility name/location and prisoner number or mark as incomplete for clerk follow-up.
4
Date format validation for all date fields (MM/DD/YYYY or clearly parseable)
Validates that all entered dates (judgment date, sentencing date, appeal result dates, filing dates, other sentence date, executed/signed date, and prison mailing date) follow an accepted format and are parseable into a real calendar date. Correct date parsing is critical for timeliness analysis (AEDPA one-year limit) and for sequencing procedural history. Unparseable or impossible dates (e.g., 13/40/2024) undermine automated checks and can mislead the court. If validation fails, the system should require correction or treat the date as missing and request clarification.
5
Chronology consistency check (judgment date, sentencing date, appeal dates, mailing/execution dates)
Ensures logical ordering of key events: sentencing should not occur after execution/mailing; judgment date should not be after sentencing (or if it is, it should be explainable by amended judgment); appeal result dates should not precede the notice/appeal filing context; and the motionâs execution/mailing date should not precede the judgment being challenged. Chronological consistency supports credibility and helps courts assess timeliness and procedural default. If inconsistencies are detected, the system should flag for manual review and request an explanation or corrected dates.
6
Plea selection validation (exactly one plea option checked, with conditional details for mixed pleas)
Checks that exactly one plea option is selected in Q5(a): Not guilty, Guilty, or Nolo contendere. If the movant indicates mixed pleas (guilty to one count and not guilty to another), Q5(b) must be completed with specific counts/charges for each plea. This matters because plea posture affects available claims (e.g., trial errors vs. plea voluntariness) and procedural history. If validation fails, require the filer to select one option or complete the conditional explanation for mixed pleas.
7
Trial type conditional validation (trial type required only if case went to trial)
Validates that Q6 (jury vs. judge-only trial) is answered only when the movantâs plea/trial posture indicates a trial occurred (e.g., not guilty plea leading to trial). If the movant pled guilty/nolo and no trial occurred, the system should allow Q6 to be blank or explicitly marked âN/A,â but should not accept contradictory entries (e.g., guilty plea plus âjury trialâ without explanation). This prevents inconsistent procedural histories that complicate review. If validation fails, prompt for clarification (trial occurred vs. plea disposition).
8
Appeal section completeness and branching logic (Q8–Q9)
If Q8 indicates an appeal was taken, Q9(a)â(f) should be completed at least with the appellate court name and result, and any known docket/citation/date fields should be provided or explicitly marked âunknown.â If Q8 is âNo,â Q9 should be blank and not contain partial appeal details. This branching logic is important for determining finality and timeliness and for assessing procedural default. If validation fails, the system should require completion of the appeal details or correction of the appeal yes/no selection.
9
Certiorari branching validation (Q9(g) and subparts)
If the movant answers âYesâ to filing a petition for certiorari, the system should require completion of at least one identifying detail (Supreme Court docket number or result/date) and the grounds raised, if known. If âNo,â the certiorari subparts should be empty to avoid contradictory records. This matters because certiorari affects when the conviction became final for AEDPA purposes. If validation fails, prompt the filer to complete the certiorari details or correct the yes/no response.
10
Prior collateral attacks completeness (Q10–Q11) with repeatable entries
If Q10 is âYes,â Q11 must include at least one prior proceeding with the court name, nature of proceeding, and result; if a second proceeding is indicated, the second set must be similarly complete. The system should also validate that hearing/appeal yes-no fields in Q11 align with provided explanations (e.g., if âNo appeal,â an explanation in Q11(d) is required). This is important for identifying successive motions, abuse-of-writ concerns, and procedural history. If validation fails, require missing prior-proceeding details or an explanation for omitted appeal steps.
11
Grounds for relief completeness (at least one ground with supporting facts)
Validates that at least one of Grounds OneâFour is populated with a clear ground statement and supporting facts in the designated âSupporting factsâ area, not merely legal citations or conclusory statements. The form requires factual support for each ground, and courts often dismiss or order amendment when claims are vague. This check helps ensure the motion is reviewable and reduces back-and-forth deficiency notices. If validation fails, the system should require the movant to add factual allegations for at least one ground or attach additional pages as indicated.
12
Per-ground procedural history branching (direct appeal and post-conviction questions)
For each ground, if the movant answers that the issue was not raised on direct appeal, the âexplain whyâ field must be completed; similarly, if the issue was raised in post-conviction proceedings, the type of motion, court, decision date, and result should be provided. If the movant indicates an appeal from denial occurred, the appeal court and result details must be present; if no appeal/issue not raised, an explanation is required. This matters because exhaustion/procedural default analysis depends on these answers. If validation fails, prompt for the missing explanation/details for the specific ground.
13
Pending proceedings validation (Q14) with required details when 'Yes'
If Q14 indicates there is a pending motion/petition/appeal, the system must require the court name/location, docket/case number (if known), type of proceeding, and issues raised. If Q14 is âNo,â the details section should be blank to avoid contradictions. This is important to prevent duplicative litigation and to inform the court about related active matters that may affect jurisdiction or scheduling. If validation fails, require completion of the pending-proceeding details or correction of the yes/no selection.
14
Future sentence section branching and completeness (Q17)
If Q17 is âYes,â the system should require the other sentencing court name/location, date imposed, and length of sentence, and require a yes/no answer to whether a challenge has been or will be filed. If Q17 is âNo,â the subparts should be empty. This matters because the proper court for a future sentence challenge may differ, and the court needs clarity on what judgment is being attacked. If validation fails, prompt for the missing future-sentence details or correct the branching response.
15
Timeliness explanation requirement when judgment finality appears over one year (Q18)
Checks whether the provided dates suggest the conviction became final more than one year before the motionâs prison mailing date/execution date; if so, Q18 must contain an explanation addressing AEDPA timeliness (e.g., later trigger date, impediment removal, newly recognized right, newly discovered facts, or equitable tolling facts). This is important because untimely § 2255 motions are commonly dismissed unless an exception applies. If validation fails, the system should require a timeliness explanation or flag the filing for potential time-bar review.
16
Signature, perjury declaration, and prison mailbox date validation
Validates that the movant signed the motion, that an execution (signed) date is present, and that the âplaced in the prison mailing system onâ date is completed (or explicitly marked not applicable if not incarcerated at filing). If someone other than the movant signs, the relationship and reason the movant did not sign must be provided. This matters because unsworn/unsigned motions may be stricken and the mailbox date can control filing timeliness. If validation fails, the system should reject as not properly verified or require completion of signature/relationship fields.
Common Mistakes in Completing AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion
People often mail the motion to the court closest to the prison or to the court handling a different case, but a § 2255 motion must be filed in the U.S. district court that entered the judgment being challenged. Filing in the wrong district can cause delays, dismissal, or transfer (which can be risky if deadlines are tight). To avoid this, copy the exact district and division from your criminal judgment and address the motion to that courtâs Clerk.
Movants sometimes try to attack multiple federal cases (or cases from different judges/divisions) in one filing because the facts feel related. The form instructions require that you challenge only one courtâs judgment per motion, and mixing judgments can lead to the court ordering refiling or dismissing parts of the motion. To avoid this, file separate § 2255 motions for each distinct judgment/case number you want to challenge.
A very common error is providing incomplete identifying information in Questions 1â3 (e.g., missing the criminal case number, wrong district, or approximate dates). This can slow down docketing, cause confusion with similarly named defendants, and lead to an order to amend. Use your Judgment and Commitment (J&C) document to fill in the exact court, case number, judgment date, sentencing date, and sentence length.
People frequently check the wrong plea option (not guilty/guilty/nolo contendere) or forget to explain a mixed-plea situation (guilty to some counts, not guilty to others) as requested in Question 6(b). Inconsistencies can undermine credibility and make it harder for the court to understand the procedural history. To avoid this, match your answers to the plea hearing record and judgment, and clearly list which counts you pled to and which went to trial (if any).
Movants often answer âYesâ to an appeal but leave blanks for the appellate court, docket number, result, date, citation, and grounds raised (Question 9), or they forget to mention a certiorari petition. Missing appeal history can lead to follow-up orders and can affect procedural default analysis. To avoid this, use your appellate docket sheet or correspondence to provide the court name (e.g., âU.S. Court of Appeals for the ___ Circuitâ), the case number, decision date, and the issues you raised.
Many people forget earlier filings such as prior § 2255 motions, Rule 33/35 motions, § 2241 petitions, compassionate release motions that raised similar issues, or state/federal habeas-related applications. Incomplete disclosure in Questions 10â11 can cause credibility problems and may trigger restrictions on âsecond or successiveâ § 2255 motions. To avoid this, list every prior motion/petition about the same judgment, even if it was denied, dismissed, or filed pro se, and include the court, date, and result.
In Question 12, people often write conclusions (e.g., âineffective assistanceâ or âdue process violationâ) without the who/what/when/where details the form requests, or they cite lots of case law instead of facts. The court may find the claims too vague, order an amended motion, or deny claims that are not factually developed. To avoid this, for each ground provide a short factual narrative: what counsel/government/judge did, the date or stage (plea, trial, sentencing), what evidence exists, and how it affected the outcome; put legal argument in a separate memorandum if you choose to file one.
For each ground, the form asks whether it was raised on direct appeal and in post-conviction proceedings, and if not, why (Question 12(b)â(c)). People frequently skip these subparts or answer inconsistently across grounds, which can lead to procedural-default problems and additional court orders. To avoid this, answer every âYes/Noâ and provide a brief, specific explanation when you did not raise an issue earlier (e.g., newly discovered facts, ineffective assistance, lack of access to records).
Because the form provides four âGroundâ sections, movants sometimes squeeze multiple unrelated claims into one ground or leave out claims they intend to raise later. The form warns that failing to include all grounds can bar later presentation, so omissions can permanently forfeit claims. To avoid this, list each distinct claim as its own ground and attach clearly labeled additional pages (e.g., âGround Five,â âGround Sixâ) with supporting facts for each.
Question 18 requires an explanation if the conviction became final more than one year ago, but many movants leave it blank or write only that they are âlateâ without tying it to one of the statutory triggers. This can result in immediate dismissal as time-barred. To avoid this, calculate finality (including appeal/certiorari timelines) and, if outside one year, explain precisely which § 2255(f) provision applies (impediment removed, new retroactive Supreme Court right, newly discovered facts with diligence) and include dates and supporting documentation.
A frequent technical defect is forgetting to sign under penalty of perjury, not dating the execution, or not filling in the date the motion was placed in the prison mailing system (Page 13). Unsigned or undated motions can be rejected, delayed, or treated as filed later than intendedâpotentially affecting timeliness. To avoid this, sign and date where indicated, complete the prison mailbox date, and keep proof of mailing (legal mail log, receipt, or declaration).
Saved over 80 hours a year
âI was never sure if my IRS forms like W-9 were filled correctly. Now, I can complete the forms accurately without any external help.â
Kevin Martin Green
Your data stays secure with advanced protection from Instafill and our subprocessors
Robust compliance program
Transparent business model
Youâre not the product. You always know where your data is and what it is processed for.
ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR
Our subprocesses adhere to multiple compliance standards, including but not limited to ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR.
Security & privacy by design
We consider security and privacy from the initial design phase of any new service or functionality. Itâs not an afterthought, itâs built-in, including support for two-factor authentication (2FA) to further protect your account.
Fill out AO 243 / 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion with Instafill.ai
Worried about filling PDFs wrong? Instafill securely fills ao-243-rev-0917-motion-to-vacate-set-aside-or-corr forms, ensuring each field is accurate.
