FRED AUSTON WORTMAN, III v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

FRED AUSTON WORTMAN, III v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 6, 2026

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: W. Lewis Jenkins, Jr., Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, Fred Auston Wortman, III.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin L. Barker, Assistant Attorney General; Steve Mulroy, District Attorney General; and Sam Winnig, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): DYER

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.

Attachments: