IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 24, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSHUA D. JOHNSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County

No. C69518 James F. Goodwin, Jr., Judge

No. E2018-00793-CCA-R3-PC

The petitioner, Joshua D. Johnson, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s 

summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Because the postconviction court should have granted the petitioner an opportunity to amend his petition 

to comply with the statutory requirements, we reverse and remand.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed and Remanded

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY 

THOMAS, JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

Brennan M. Wingerter, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joshua D. Johnson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant 

Attorney General; and Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General.

OPINION

On September 8, 2014, a Sullivan County petit jury convicted the petitioner

of 34 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, and the State dismissed one additional 

count. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of four years’ incarceration. This 

court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Joshua 

Johnson, No. E2016-00334-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 11, 13 (Tenn. Crim. App., 

Knoxville, Dec. 28, 2016).

On April 5, 2018, the petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, the ineffective assistance of counsel. On 

April 9, 2018, the post-conviction court summarily dismissed the pro se petition, first 

classifying the petition as an ex parte letter then stating that the petition failed to comply 

with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the post-conviction court found that the pro 

03/12/2019
-2-

se petition, despite “includ[ing] language to the effect that the statements included in the 

petition [we]re true,” lacked the requisite oath and, therefore, did not comply with the 

statutory requirements.

In this timely appeal, the petitioner argues that the post-conviction court 

erred by summarily dismissing the pro se petition without appointing counsel and without 

granting the petitioner “an opportunity to amend his petition to correct the technical error 

in his oath.” The State agrees with the petitioner that the post-conviction court erred by 

summarily dismissing the pro se petition without affording the petitioner a “reasonable 

opportunity to amend” his petition.

Initially, we note that the petitioner’s filing is styled “Petition for PostConviction Relief,” was filed in the Criminal Court for Sullivan County, and includes a 

certificate of service on the State and, thus, cannot reasonably be construed as an ex parte 

letter to the court. Therefore, we will consider the filing a pro se petition for postconviction relief.

As is relevant to this case, the Code provides that a petition for postconviction relief “shall be verified under oath.” T.C.A. § 40-30-104(e). A petition is 

properly verified under oath when the petitioner gives the oath “in the presence of a third 

person qualified to take oaths, such as a notary public.” Kenneth R. Griffin v. State, No. 

E2001-01932-CCA-R3-PC, slip op. 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 19, 2002). 

Failure to comply with this statutory requirement causes a petition to be “devoid of 

factual allegations in support of [the p]etitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief.” Id. 

However, a post-conviction court may not summarily dismiss a pro se petition for postconviction relief for lack of verification under oath without first affording the petitioner a 

“reasonable opportunity to amend the petition.” Tenn. S. Ct. R. 28 § 6(B)(4)(b); see also

Jerry Timberlake v. State, No. W2008-00037-CCA-R3-PC, slip op. at 4 (Tenn. Crim. 

App., Jackson, Feb. 5, 2009); Kenneth R. Griffin, slip op. at 4.

Here, the pro se petition includes the following, “The statements made in 

this petition are true to the best ability and knowledge of the petitioner at the time the 

petition was filed.” The petitioner’s signature appears directly below this statement. 

Although this is an apparent attempt by the petitioner to effectuate an oath, this statement, 

without the verification of an official such as a notary public, is insufficient to satisfy the 

requirements of the statute. See Clifton Harrison v. State, No. E2009-00222-CCA-R3-

PC, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Oct.11, 2010) (citing Sexton v. State, 151 

S.W.3d 525, 529-30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003)). We agree with the State that, because the 

petitioner filed his post-conviction petition pro se, the post-conviction court erred by 

summarily dismissing the petition without affording the petitioner “a reasonable 
-3-

opportunity to amend the petition” by signing under oath that the allegations in the 

petition are true and by having an appropriate official attest to taking the oath. See Tenn. 

S. Ct. R. 28 § 6(B)(4)(b).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and 

remand the case to that court to allow the petitioner an opportunity to amend his petition

and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

_________________________________ 

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE