Christopher Lewis v. State of Tennessee, M2015-01198-CCA-R3-PC

Christopher Lewis was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder in May 2012 and sentenced to 15 years; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
On April 6, 2015, Lewis, through retained counsel, filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
The petition submitted was not signed by Lewis, not verified under oath, and counsel did not sign the petition or the Rule 28 certificate of counsel.
The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition two days after filing for these procedural deficiencies without notifying Lewis or giving an opportunity to cure.
Lewis later attempted to file a “corrected” verified petition, but that document was not part of the trial-court record and was untimely if considered.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the post-conviction court should have allowed Lewis an opportunity to correct the deficiencies before dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a post-conviction petition not signed/verified may be summarily dismissed without opportunity to amend	Lewis: court erred by dismissing without giving chance to verify or correct deficiencies	State: dismissal was proper because petition was unsigned and unverified	Reversed — court should have allowed Lewis a reasonable opportunity to correct the petition before dismissal
Effect of counsel’s failure to sign petition and file Rule 28 certificate	Lewis: deficiencies could be easily cured; dismissal would unfairly bar claims	State: counsel’s omissions justify dismissal	Court: counsel’s failure to comply with Rule 28 does not mandate dismissal; court should have allowed cure
Whether a later “corrected” petition filed after dismissal may be considered	Lewis: filed a corrected verified petition on May 15, 2015	State: corrected petition not in trial-court record and untimely	Court: cannot consider documents not in the appellate record; May 15 filing would be untimely relative to dismissal
Applicability of Holton (next-friend issue)	Lewis: not a next-friend filing; no indication petitioner opposed counsel’s filing	State: relied on Holton to support dismissal	Court: Holton distinguishable — no showing counsel filed without petitioner’s consent here

Hutcherson v. State, 75 S.W.3d 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (requires petitions be verified under oath to ensure factual allegations are sworn)
Sexton v. State, 151 S.W.3d 525 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (court may allow cure of verification defects in certain circumstances rather than foreclosing claims)
Holton v. State, 201 S.W.3d 626 (Tenn. 2006) (post-conviction petition filed by counsel as “next friend” without petitioner’s consent cannot be considered)
Frazier v. State, 303 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2010) (Rule 28 imposes minimum duties on post-conviction counsel; failure can affect compensation but does not automatically require dismissal)