Appellate panel hears challenge to post-conviction dismissal over verification and recusal requests

An appellate panel heard oral argument in a post-conviction appeal in which the petitioner, identified in court as Miss Martin, asked the court to vacate a summary dismissal she says was based on an erroneous finding that her petition lacked proper verification.

Miss Martin told the court she filed a petition that included "a sworn declaration under the penalty of notarized stamped verification page" and pointed to the record entry she said shows the verification (trial record volume 1, page 29). She said the trial court's order (trial record volume 2, page 219) framed the defect as an absence of an oath under penalty of perjury—an account she says contradicts the face of the record.

"The petition itself contained a sworn declaration under the penalty of notarized stamped verification page stating that it was subscribed and sworn before a notary public," Miss Martin told the court, and she asked the panel to compare the order to the record and determine whether the correct legal standard was applied.

She also argued the petition should not have been dismissed without the required colorable-claim analysis and cited authorities she said support that framework, including the transcripted reference to "TCA sections 40 31 0 6," "supreme court rule 28," and this court's decision in Hough v. State (2005). Miss Martin said she filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and an amended motion to recuse to preserve the issues and that those filings were made in good faith. She asked that, if the court remands, the case be reassigned to a detached, neutral judge and venue changed if necessary to preserve impartiality.

Responding for the state, Lacey Wilber identified herself "on behalf of the state" and urged the court to affirm. Wilber said the post-conviction court correctly determined the petition was not sworn and verified because, although the record contained a notary stamp, "that signature line of the notary is blank." She said the trial court provided the petitioner time to correct the defect and that instead the petitioner "stood on that," justifying summary dismissal.

Wilber also told the panel the trial court correctly denied the recusal motion and noted that the petitioner had filed multiple recusal motions in the appellate court that were previously denied. "We ask that you affirm the summary denial and dismissal of the post-conviction petition," she said.

The bench thanked counsel, took the arguments under advisement and said it would issue an opinion in due course. The court recessed until 1:30.

The hearing record shows competing factual claims about whether the petition was properly verified on its face and whether the absence of a handwritten notary signature is the operative defect. The panel's forthcoming opinion will determine whether the trial court applied the appropriate post-conviction standards and whether the dismissal may be sustained on the record.