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.

Shamone Davis, Defendant, was convicted of four counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, one count of attempted statutory rape by an authority figure, and three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure for events that involved his stepdaughter. As a result of the convictions, Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty years. Defendant appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, the trial court improperly admitted testimony of several witnesses, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for attempted statutory rape by an authority figure, and his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Darren Brown, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. He contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and that he is entitled to relief on the merits of his petition. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Petitioners attempted to terminate the parental rights of the child’s biological father on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support. The trial court found that neither ground had been proven but proceeded to find that had grounds for termination been proven, it would be in the child’s best interest for the biological father’s parental rights to be terminated. Although we affirm the trial court’s finding that the biological father proved that his failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s finding as to the ground of abandonment by failure to support. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.