Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs November 8, 2016
from the Circuit Court for Dickson County Nos.
22CC-2014-CR-359, 22CC-2014-CR-147 David D. Wolfe, Judge
defendant, Robert L. Lumpkin, appeals the Dickson County
Circuit Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas to aggravated sexual battery and sexual
exploitation of a minor, arguing that he did not understand
the lifetime supervision aspect of the sex offender registry
at the time he entered his pleas. Following our review, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
S. Hooper, Waverly, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert L.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Katherine C. Redding, Assistant Attorney General; Wendell R.
Crouch, Jr., District Attorney General; and Carey J.
Thompson, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
Appellee, State of Tennessee.
E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Robert W. Wedemeyer, J., joined. Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., not
E. GLENN, JUDGE
April 2014, the Dickson County Grand Jury returned a
presentment in Case Number 22CC-2014-CR-147 charging the
defendant with four counts of rape of a child, a Class A
felony. In August 2014, the Dickson County Grand Jury
returned a second presentment in Case Number 22CC-2014-CR-359
charging the defendant with sexual exploitation of a minor
based on his possession of more than 100 images of child
pornography and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of
a minor, Class B felonies.
August 28, 2015, the defendant entered nolo contendere guilty
pleas in both cases, pleading guilty in count one of case
number 22CC-2014-CR-147 to the lesser charge of aggravated
sexual battery, a Class B felony, in exchange for an
eight-year sentence at 100% and registration as a sex
offender, with the remaining counts of the presentment
dismissed. In case number 22CC-2014-CR-359, the defendant
pled guilty in count one to sexual exploitation of a minor
(more than 100 images), in exchange for eight years at 100%
in the Department of Correction and registration as a sex
offender, to be served concurrently with his sentence in case
number 22CC-2014-CR-147. The second count of the presentment
defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas. That motion is not included in the record.
However, in an October 14, 2015 motion to withdraw as
counsel, which is included in the record, trial counsel
referenced the defendant's "timely" motion to
withdraw his pleas. On November 4, 2015, the trial court
entered an order granting trial counsel's motion to
withdraw as counsel and appointing substitute counsel.
March 15, 2016 hearing on the motion to withdraw the pleas,
the defendant testified that trial counsel met with him only
two or three times before he entered his pleas. He said that
trial counsel reviewed with him the charges and the potential
punishment he faced, but he did not understand all of it.
Counsel discussed the plea agreement with him, and he
understood it involved an eight-year sentence, but counsel
only "vaguely" discussed with him the lifetime
supervision aspect of the plea. Had he fully understood that
aspect of the sentence, he "more than likely" would
have opted to proceed to trial.
cross-examination, the defendant acknowledged that he assured
the trial court at the guilty plea hearing that he understood
his sentence would require supervision for life. The
defendant testified that he thought he understood the
requirement at the time but that he did not "actually .
. . know exactly what" it involved because trial counsel
told him he would be on the sex offender registry for life
without fully explaining it. On redirect examination, he