Branning v. State, 2014 Ark. 256

Christopher Branning was convicted in 2005 of second-degree stalking, two counts of first-degree terroristic threatening, and misdemeanor violation of a protective order and received concurrent sentences.
On direct appeal, the court of appeals reversed and dismissed some convictions on double-jeopardy grounds; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review, vacated that opinion, and affirmed the trial court as to double jeopardy and speedy-trial issues (Branning v. State, 371 Ark. 433).
Branning filed a timely Rule 37.1 petition for postconviction relief on January 18, 2007; the circuit court dismissed it for lack of custody because he was on parole at the time of the oral ruling, but the written order was entered after his parole was revoked.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded in 2010, holding the written order’s entry date controlled and that Branning was in custody when the order was filed, so the petition could proceed (2010 Ark. 401).
On remand, Branning filed amended pro se Rule 37.1 petitions (Feb. 25 and July 6, 2011); the Feb. 25 petition in the record was unverified (no notarized affidavit), violating Rule 37.1(c).
The Supreme Court dismissed Branning’s appeal (motion for rule on clerk moot), holding the unverified petition failed Rule 37.1 verification requirements, depriving the trial and appellate courts of jurisdiction to consider the petition’s merits.

Issue	Branning's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the Feb. 25, 2011 Rule 37.1 petition was properly filed/verified	Branning contended his amended petitions (Feb. 25 and July 6) were properly before the court and substantively raise collateral claims	State argued the Feb. 25 petition lacked the mandatory notarized verification required by Rule 37.1(c), so it conferred no jurisdiction	Court held the Feb. 25 petition was unverified, violated Rule 37.1(c), and therefore did not confer jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether the late filing of Branning’s brief-in-chief warranted relief via rule on clerk	Branning sought an order compelling the clerk to file his brief tendered one day late	State did not need to address because jurisdictional defect prevented appeal from proceeding	Court denied consideration as moot and dismissed appeal because Branning could not prevail on the merits

Branning v. State, 371 Ark. 433 (Ark. 2007) (reviewed direct-appeal double-jeopardy and speedy-trial rulings)
Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 85 (Ark. 2014) (verification requirement under Rule 37.1 is jurisdictional and prevents consideration of unverified petitions)
Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (Ark. 2012) (circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider arguments in unverified Rule 37.1 petitions)
Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 (Ark. 1980) (verification requirement protects against perjury)