lifetime community supervision requirement in Tennessee

2020See id. at 21-23 .

2017Pursuant to a related statute, Tennessee Code 1 “The crimes that warrant lifetime community supervision are all quite serious felonies[.]” Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1, 21 (Tenn. 2014). 2 The statute was later amended to substitute “Board of Probation and Parole” for “Board of Paroles.” 1998 Tenn. Pub.

2017The Tennessee Supreme Court has described the lifetime community supervision requirement as “punitive in effect, requiring an offender to regularly report to a parole officer who is granted wide discretion in imposing supervisory requirements, and to pay a monthly fee.”3 Id. at 474 .

2013See Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d at 466-67 (recognizing that “[c]ourts are constitutionally required to notify defendants of only the direct consequences — not the collateral consequences — of a guilty plea” and holding that the sex offender registry requirement is a collateral consequence while the lifetime community supervision requirement for sexual offenders is a direct consequence); Howell v. State, 185 S.W.3d 319, 331 (Tenn.2006); Jaco, 120 S.W.3d at 831 ; State v. Prince, 781 S.W.2d 846, 853 (Tenn.1989) (“Mackey mandated advice by the trial judge about the consequences of a guilty plea tha

2020The trial court entered a corrected judgment one month later, and the defendant immediately filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, “claiming that because he was not informed of the lifetime community supervision requirement, his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made.” Id.

2020Nagele immediately “moved to set aside the conviction, claiming that because he was not informed of the lifetime community supervision requirement, his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made.” Id.

2022Cf. Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 471 (Tenn. 2001) (remanding to the post- conviction court for a hearing to determine whether due process required the tolling of the statute of limitations where “the appellee might have been denied the opportunity to challenge his conviction in a timely manner through no fault of his own but because of the possible misrepresentation of his counsel”); Robert Lewis Webb v. State, No. W2013- 01250-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 4244028 , at *5-7 (Tenn. Crim.

2020Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012).

2019Typically, “[t]he Post-Conviction Procedure Act . . . provides the procedure for attacking a constitutionally defective conviction based on a guilty plea that was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.” Johnson v. State, 834 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tenn. 1992); see also State v. Burris, 40 S.W.3d 520, 524 (Tenn. Crim.

2019Typically, “[t]he Post-Conviction Procedure Act . . . provides the procedure for attacking a constitutionally defective conviction based on a guilty plea that was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.” Johnson v. State, 834 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tenn. 1992); see also State v. Burris, 40 S.W.3d 520, 524 (Tenn. Crim.

2013See Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d at 466-67 (recognizing that “[c]ourts are constitutionally required to notify defendants of only the direct consequences — not the collateral consequences — of a guilty plea” and holding that the sex offender registry requirement is a collateral consequence while the lifetime community supervision requirement for sexual offenders is a direct consequence); Howell v. State, 185 S.W.3d 319, 331 (Tenn.2006); Jaco, 120 S.W.3d at 831 ; State v. Prince, 781 S.W.2d 846, 853 (Tenn.1989) (“Mackey mandated advice by the trial judge about the consequences of a guilty plea tha

2013See Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d at 466-67 (recognizing that “[c]ourts are constitutionally required to notify defendants of only the direct consequences — not the collateral consequences — of a guilty plea” and holding that the sex offender registry requirement is a collateral consequence while the lifetime community supervision requirement for sexual offenders is a direct consequence); Howell v. State, 185 S.W.3d 319, 331 (Tenn.2006); Jaco, 120 S.W.3d at 831 ; State v. Prince, 781 S.W.2d 846, 853 (Tenn.1989) (“Mackey mandated advice by the trial judge about the consequences of a guilty plea tha

2012See id. 5 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-524 (a) (Supp. 2001). -6- he never was made aware of the lifetime community supervision requirement until long after entering his plea, his plea is constitutionally invalid, and he must be allowed to withdraw it.

2011See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-103 (2006); 40-30-106(d) (2006); Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tenn. 2002).