This thread is a picture perfect example of a rush to judgment by folks that have no earthly idea of what has happened. Here is what I can make out from the public information presently available.
1) In 2007, before he returned to UT, Morley was arrested and probably initially charged with "strong armed robbery" at FIU---not armed robbery (i.e. no weapon involved). I'm not saying that is good---of course it isn't---but it isn't "armed robbery" as assumed by many here and on other boards. That charge is much much more serious and probably would not have qualified for a diversion when it got to court.
2) When arrested and questioned at FIU, after an apparent mis-identification of some other men by the victim, he apparently immediately confessed. That is a good thing.
3) Ultimately, the case was resolved with some sort of diversion program requiring community service by Morley. This is probably where the "tresspass" charge comes in. The original charge may have been reduced as part of his plea deal. By the way, in Tennessee you don't qualify for diversion unless you have a very clean record. If the report of a diversion offer is correct, then the several comments about Morley having a bad prior history are almost certainly unfounded. You don't get this kind of deal without a law enforcement screen of your record and a determination that this event was a first offense.
4) If the reports are correct, he performed his community service but his service was not properly recorded in the court record. In Tennessee this is a fairly common problem that defense lawyers must guard against. If you are poor and you have an overworked public defender as your counsel, the chances of someone watching out for this kind of problem can be reduced. Obviously, he thought he finished his obligation.
5) If the community service was not recorded a compliance hearing was eventually scheduled to find out why and, possibly, to revoke his deal. This is probably what happened in early September, If Morley had notice of the hearing, he should have been there or had it continued. But if he thought he had finished with his service earlier and had left Florida for Tennessee, he may never have even known the hearing was scheduled. I don't know, obviously, but it seems to me that he came back to Knoxville a long time ago to work on his academics at a community college.
6) If he didn't attend or otherwise deal with the September hearing and if he didn't correct the records, an arrest warrant being issued is the usual result, whether or not he is aware of the hearing.
7) Because to the Miami law enforcement the failure to appear warrant would appear to be a minor matter given their normal workload of heaven knows what kind of crime, it is extremely unlikey that Florida would spend limited resources pursuing or tracking him, even though that would certainly not have been hard. He clearly was not hiding and appeared on Regional and National television pretty regularly for a guy on the run. Rather, as is totally common, the defendant would get picked up on something else---most commonly a traffic charge---and the warrant would show up when the officers ran his record on the NCIC. Then a hold would be placed on him pending consultations with the Florida authorities.
8) He was released tonight because the Florida authorities don't see this as a big enough deal to extradite him and he probably has already agreed to go back for the December 23rd hearing voluntarily. At that hearing he will be required to show he has completed his community service and, maybe, pay some court costs occassioned by his failure to appear in September.
9) The result of the December hearing will likely be a dismissal of the original charges and an expungement of his record in accordance with the initial diversion agreement. Of course, if he didn't do his service or has violated the terms of his original agreement, he could have problems. Most likely, though, it will be over in about 5-10 minutes.
If UT knew about this situation and took him back anyway, which it sounds like they did, nothing more should be heaped on because of a screw-up by a court clerk in recording his compliance with his agreement. He was offered an opportunity to start over by the court and that is exactly what he should receive, assuming he has fulfilled his side of his agreement. Again, he admitted his guilt when arrested even though the FIU police had already tabbed another individual and his record could not have been bad or he would never have qualified for a diversion.
As for speeding on Chapman Highway and driving without proof of insurance, the Knoxville Municipal Court handles dozens if not hundreds of similar cases every week---maybe even for some of the posters on this site. You don't throw a kid out of school for speeding. Now, if he isn't meeting the terms of his agreement with the staff on academics or if he does something serious, that is an entirely different thing. But, again based on what I have been able to piece together, this thread's rush to judgment is way over the top.