The Knoxville Bar Association (KBA) released the results of a member poll regarding judicial candidates in the May 5 primary. The survey included candidates for the offices of Knox County Criminal Court judge; Knox County General Sessions Court judge; Knox County Circuit, Civil Sessions and Juvenile Court clerk; and Knox County Criminal Court clerk. The KBA’s nonpartisan Judicial Committee oversaw the survey. Local attorneys — 363 in this case — anonymously rated candidates as strongly recommended, recommended, not recommended, strongly not recommended or no knowledge. Read more and view results here.

Nashville author Sheri Sellmeyer will be featured in the Tennessee State Museum's TN Writers | TN Stories series on April 11 to discuss her new book, "Nashville’s New Americans: Tracing the Journeys of Our Immigrant Neighbors." Through its profiles of 39 immigrants from 38 countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Latin America and Australia, "Nashville’s New Americans" provides a case study from one of the fastest-growing cities in the country on the contributions immigrants are making to its culture and economy. Reserve a free ticket here. Sellmeyer is chair of the Family Reconciliation Center Board of Directors. The center is a nonprofit guest house that provides free lodging to people visiting incarcerated loved ones. She is married to Barry Kolar, who served as TBA's interim executive director and assistant executive director for many years.

The Tennessee Department of Revenue will host a free webinar for new businesses on April 8 at 8:30 a.m. CDT. Participants will learn about state tax obligations for new businesses in Tennessee, as well as other resources that may assist their businesses. Each new business webinar, offered quarterly, covers topics such as tax registration, sales and use tax, business tax, franchise and excise taxes, and how to get help from the department and other relevant state agencies. Register for Wednesday's webinar.

The Tennessee Supreme Court and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) have issued a warning to Tennesseans about a text and email phishing scam that references an outstanding parking and/or toll violation and appears to be from the Tennessee Supreme Court. The message includes a link and/or QR code that leads to a fake website. “We want everyone know that these text messages and emails are not coming from the Tennessee Supreme Court,” said Chief Justice Jeff Bivins. “Please know that our state courts do not send text messages or emails out regarding past due tickets. This is a scam.” The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation recommends taking the following steps if you receive one of these scam messages: Ignore it. Do not respond to the message, click any links, or scan the QR code. Read more from the AOC on what to do if you receive such a message.

Tennessee licensed attorney and TBA member Thomas West, who resides in Kansas, has been pursuing a legal challenge to the state’s professional privilege tax since March 2023, but has decided to drop the effort after exhausting all avenues for state court appeals. His suit was first rejected by a three-judge panel constituted to hear challenges to state laws. West then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. That court considered the matter, hearing oral arguments in August 2025, but in December 2025 rejected the appeal. West then filed permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, but in March, the court issued a per curiam order denying the motion. Due to the cost of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court and recently discovering an amicus brief by the U.S. Solicitor General's office arguing that bar admissions fees do not violate the Interstate Commerce clause, West has decided not to pursue his claim further. The amicus brief, filed in American Trucking Associations v. Michigan Public Service Commission stated: "A bar admission fee, for example, confers a privilege that is more valuable to a lawyer who practices exclusively within one State than to an attorney who divides his time between several States … In its so-called ‘peddler" cases,’ [the Supreme] Court has repeatedly sustained, against Commerce Clause challenge, nondiscriminatory state licensing requirements (including flat fees) imposed as a condition of engaging in local business, even when the licensees were also engaged in interstate commerce."

Tipton County General Sessions Court Judge M. O. Eckel III on April 1 swore in the three founding members — Dondi O. Albritton, David Bitzer and J. Houston Gordon — of the county Veterans Court Board, a first-of-its-kind advisory body dedicated to serving veteran defendants in the community. According to a press release, rather than establishing a resource-intensive formal treatment court, Eckel designed an independent advisory board modeled after the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) framework. The board will review cases and provide fact-based advisory reports to the court, the district attorney and defense counsel, ensuring transparency and due process at every step. "Every veteran who stands before us deserves more than a one-size-fits-all approach to justice," Eckel says. This Board ensures that we will always have the expert, veteran-centered insight needed to reach the most informed decision possible for each of them." See photos from the event.

RITZ, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Joseph McNoriell of drug crimes. McNoriell now appeals, on several grounds, his conviction and 110-month sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

The petitioner, Fred Auston Wortman, III, pled guilty to two counts of attempted first-degree murder and solicitation of first-degree murder, stemming from his repeated attempts to kill his wife. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed an effective Range II sentence of thirty years with a Range I release eligibility of thirty percent. The Board of Probation and Parole denied the petitioner release, and after challenging the denial via other avenues, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed entitlement to relief on grounds of breach of contact. In his petition, the petitioner claimed that the State violated the terms of his plea agreement by opposing his release at the parole hearing. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding it was time- barred. However, this Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the post- conviction court to make findings relative to whether due process considerations tolled the statute of limitations. See Wortman v. State, No. W2023-00017-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL 6318088, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2023). On remand, the post-conviction court -found the petitioner was not guaranteed release, that the State did not attempt to thwart the petitioner’s ability to have a parole hearing, and rejected the petitioner’s claim that the State “acted in bad faith by attending and opposing his parole” because the petitioner received the benefit of everything to which he bargained. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court denying the petitioner post-conviction relief.

A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Wayne Strouth, of first degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first degree premeditated murder. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the first degree murder conviction and a consecutive twenty-five year sentence for the conspiracy conviction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to give jury instructions on enhanced identification and general inferences; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the convictions and the Defendant's life sentence for first degree premeditated murder; however, we vacate the Defendant's sentence for conspiracy to commit first degree murder and the trial court's imposition of partial consecutive sentencing. We remand this case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

Defendant, Anthony Glover, appeals the denial of his bid for judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court’s ruling is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness and that, upon our de novo review, this court should grant him diversion. Because the trial court failed to consider all the appropriate factors and to make the required findings to support its denial of judicial diversion, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. Because we find that the record is insufficient for de novo review, the case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing.