" 'a plea of guilty cannot be voluntary in the sense that it constitutes an intelligent admission that the accused committed the offense unless' ... there [is] a full explanation of the offense to which the defendant is pleading.” Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897, 904 (Tenn.1993) (quoting Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 436, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983)). That is, "because a guilty plea is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge, it cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 n. 5, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) (quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969)). See also Crowe, 168 S.W.3d at 748 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175,
recognizing that where a defendant enters a plea to a crime without having been informed of the crimes elements  the plea is invalid  recognizing that where a guilty plea is shown to be constitutionally invalid leave to withdraw the plea is constitutionally mandated holding that a plea was valid even though the defendant had not been informed that as a foreign national who had immigrated to this country he would face deportation as a result of the plea recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea holding documents insufficient when they simply restate the language of the statute and defendant enters a plea without elaboration