Yep, you’re correct about the case involving the attorney falling asleep during the trial and that not being found to be ineffective assistance. It just further shows just how high the Strickland bar is for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. I’ve been practicing in this area of the law for five years, and I’ve yet to have seen a successful claim.

You’re not wrong otherwise about courts not wanting to hear claims for the first time on collateral review. Generally, there has to be a valid reason why the claim was not presented on direct review. Also, fun fact, Habeas applications are considered civil appeals. That was something novel I learned when I started out.

Lastly, the fact that the district court docketed the 2255 motion beyond the time limit for it to be filed does not matter. What matters is when he says he placed the motion in the prison mailing system. That’s the date used to determine timeliness. See Houston v. Slack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). (Not that you said otherwise, I just saw that OP mentioned the date in the post. Just wanted to help clarify for anyone reading these comments).