- Timing: Appeals are filed shortly after conviction or sentencing, usually within a strict legal deadline (often 30 days), while post-conviction remedies occur after appeals have been exhausted or when no appeal was filed.
- Purpose: Appeals focus on reviewing the trial court’s legal or procedural errors raised during the trial or sentencing, whereas post-conviction remedies address broader issues like new evidence, constitutional violations, or ineffective counsel not typically raised on appeal.
- Court Level: Appeals are heard by higher appellate courts that review the lower trial court’s decision. Post-conviction remedies are initiated in the trial court that imposed the sentence, and any further review goes through appellate courts separately.
- Procedure: Appeals mainly involve written briefs and oral arguments centered on alleged errors in trial proceedings. Post-conviction remedies often require evidentiary hearings to consider new facts or claim violations, and they may involve different formal motions such as habeas corpus petitions or motions for a new trial.
- Scope of Review: Appeals are generally limited to the trial record and legal questions presented. Post-conviction remedies can introduce new evidence or arguments outside the trial record.
In essence, appeals are a direct, time-sensitive challenge to the trial court’s decision based on the existing record, while post-conviction remedies offer a secondary, more flexible avenue to correct injustices that arise after the appeal window closes or cover issues that appeal cannot address.
