[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5977704,"mediaKeyId","5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec","parentId",5810433,"title","Court sets motion days and trial schedule for multi-defendant daycare case transferred from Stuart County","audioSeconds",242,"startMs",486000,"endMs",728000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec&start=486&end=728","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec/thumbnail_486000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5977704/Tennessee/Court-sets-motion-days-and-trial-schedule-for-multi-defendant-daycare-case-transferred-from-Stuart-County","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5977704-a975b834c2be5fe624fcb0e905e16309/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557559&Signature=LdxDUMBizFLIByoup8tkaLrSljh~wik9RIPhwPta0RTk655dDDVycGfq8yq9r7lKoqGvwVe880EfWY9II8gA6AYywE9EHd31S3xjatPrsv7BBs2obZUrW-KRcP~LQxlntj2-h2GkbUYspBCURCERUBZga8FpDxftLe5w8EfhwEb-Evcqf0H32NiOBtmILsxVVnt-Sm0Rcp7QI2QUKA9CsBYv06ldVGZhLhSssLQY0iIsyfkYD-qW1rzHot7FnH0u62XeXu5dx6N-7J-RPQoGL6o6Gy9zizqE6o9ISYE9mCVDoBOF9KtoqZsLoNGi-P1YBVKklkX0I8IxQFrCUYDScg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee","date","2025-09-22T00:00:00Z","article","The court set a sequence of motion and trial dates for a multi-defendant case involving an alleged incident at a daycare that was transferred from Stuart County.

Defense counsel reported that the matter was moved into Dixon County but that witnesses and forensic interviews are located in Stewart County; counsel proposed holding some motion practice out of county where witnesses are concentrated. The court and counsel discussed calendar conflicts and settled on motion dates and a multi-day trial window. The transcript records counsel and the judge setting a motions date in early December and additional motion scheduling in January to accommodate travel and availability of counsel and witnesses.

The judge confirmed a multi-day trial and discussed potential trial weeks; during the exchange the judge indicated a trial window later in the summer would be set as the final trial date after motions conclude. The judge also emphasized that the January status date would be the last routine status day before the court set a firm trial date and that parties must be prepared to resolve the case by agreement on the status day or prepare for trial.

Why it matters: The case involves multiple victims and multiple defendants; scheduling impacts numerous witnesses and other co-defendants and requires coordination across county lines. The court recognized the practical needs of witness locations and permitted flexible settings for motion practice when appropriate.

Discussion vs. decision: Counsel debated the most efficient place and timing to conduct forensic- and witness-related motions; the court agreed to provide earlier motion dates in December and a status/motion date in January; a multi-day trial week was placed on the calendar to accommodate what counsel described as a four-plus day trial.

What happens next: Counsel will proceed with pretrial motions on the scheduled motion days; the court warned that the January status day is likely the last routine status day before a trial date is set.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","9-22-25 Dickson Criminal Docket","oneSentenceSummary","The circuit court set motion and trial dates for a day care case that was transferred from Stuart County, agreeing to multiple motion dates and a multi-day trial in mid-summer after counsel discussed travel, witness locations and calendar conflicts.","taxTitle","Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee, Judicial, Tennessee","taxId",66321,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5977710,"Man pleads guilty to multiple counts; judge imposes lengthy concurrent and consecutive sentences",445,10850000,11295000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec&start=10850&end=11295","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec/thumbnail_10850000.jpg","/articles/5977710/Tennessee/Man-pleads-guilty-to-multiple-counts-judge-imposes-lengthy-concurrent-and-consecutive-sentences","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5977710-b647b5c1b00efcc6e0d13295bd9446a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557559&Signature=YObQYVU8b3Ukbs9KcqTTdCVskccB1R243qUjsRnHGFi3~jm~wMlzZjO~R6tjhd~SLP7icQxx4QL~tEdNYVycIUcjEqa5x-ECMD-ZRRAMLUSP31ZB5lJn9NkQGTqTmXsTATs7V99tInO3xNsTmFfCuVBkpUCzYMyF0bVVsroNI8ZxtRVl9RFpTuymQuVdK95LBZxgD3jSGz4KLDB-WloyXNyDhOmDmN83ZIpKLMXLE5vlZmCeKNCldsrvhtH~NpFcSfewjq2NT9CgQvCzO524IHnl9H0uQb63wgl4Bx1pDGZ7HwRKQyvf7xAU08ej5vMdBMQVfsr4A8wOybU9KNecDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","James Wills entered guilty pleas on multiple indictments during the docket call and the court pronounced a series of sentences covering offenses including drug and weapon charges as well as aggravated assault.

The state's factual proffer described two related incidents: in one (2022CR65), deputies attempted to serve a parole warrant and pursued Wills; according to the state's statement, Wills was in a vehicle, fled into a pasture, and, after allegedly refusing orders to drop a pistol, deputies used their weapons and struck Wills. The prosecution said Wills had a pistol in his hand and was tased before deputies fired. In a separate matter (2021CR453), the state said Wills was stopped with quantities of cocaine consistent with possession with intent to sell and a firearm.

On the record the court accepted the pleas and imposed specific terms across the matters: in the 2021 docket the judge pronounced consecutive and concurrent terms across counts, including multi-year terms with differing release eligibilities (some counts carrying 30% release eligibility, others 45% or 100% as stated on the record). In the 2022 docket the court sentenced multiple counts to terms ranging from months to 15 years, with some counts ordered consecutive to Wills' existing Department of Corrections sentences in other counties. The court also dismissed one docketed matter as part of the agreement and waived fines and court costs given Wills' lengthy expected incarceration.

Why it matters: The plea resolved multiple pending felony indictments and will substantially extend Wills' prison time because portions of the new sentences run consecutive to prior DOC commitments. The case demonstrates how plea agreements can bundle multiple indictments into a single negotiated outcome.

Discussion vs. decision: Prosecutors presented a factual summary; defense counsel confirmed his client's satisfaction with counsel; the judge accepted the pleas and pronounced sentence decisions on the record.

What happens next: Wills will be remanded to the custody of the Tennessee Department of Corrections; the judgment sets precise credit for time served and indicates which counts run concurrently and which are consecutive to other DOC sentences.","James Wills pleaded guilty to multiple indictments including possession with intent, felon possession of firearm, and aggravated assault following an officer-involved shooting; the court imposed several multi-year terms with some counts concurrent and others consecutive to existing Department of Corrections sentences.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5977714,"Defendant pleads no contest to aggravated assault; victim gives lengthy impact statement",855,22399000,23254000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec&start=22399&end=23254","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec/thumbnail_22399000.jpg","/articles/5977714/Tennessee/Defendant-pleads-no-contest-to-aggravated-assault-victim-gives-lengthy-impact-statement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5977714-0d3e53c3a972748ba7fdc47296b3755c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557559&Signature=CVOGrSdpXN5IC7Hqwb~XPvxcxDvNo1zz9QrWsi0kW1I91HS2BQolNuLhjFAISyyhmDZ2Eg9hSRKt9Vsaw4I6F86ZTJbGw6OhHYw18WcQsUV1h~Gvqddb7ZqcGKJ7XAhIRs-sR5skGv9rw2M-WX~0x14jat90U0oie2G1xFX-DFtDx6SlUrtnGG4rt4gW1YsnPnbqqvkdcl0gGqYT2hd3UxkpZW8c1VBHf40dfwVoB2r4xYPV4Ik5LDOLKVEeSaI8RaQYz3AdcLDcDludzCoEZQNcq~8E~khnrxpvmYHM60XiHJg0JeCuzJC-VwHwGJ2IA3RbxieUk09mPmgZiu1Oqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A defendant, Keenan Himes, entered a no-contest plea to an amended charge of aggravated assault and was sentenced to a six-year term in the Tennessee Department of Corrections suspended to probation, the presiding judge told the court on the docket call.

The state described events that led to the charge; prosecutors said the complainant, Ashley Searcy, awoke to find she had been sexually assaulted and later sustained physical and emotional injury. The judge heard an extended victim impact statement from Searcy, who described long-term psychological effects, medical treatment and disrupted family life. \"The image of seeing my own blood on my shower... will haunt me forever,\" she told the court.

Under the plea agreement the judge accepted, Himes will serve six years if probation is revoked; several special conditions accompany probation. The court ordered an in-person probation reporting requirement, a psychosexual evaluation with follow-up treatment if recommended, a monthly drug-screening requirement with a 0-tolerance policy (one positive screen will lead to incarceration), and a no-contact order with the victim. The judge explicitly told Himes that a single violation would send him to prison for the full six years at 100% service eligibility.

Why it matters: The case involved allegations of sexual misconduct in a private setting and the victim's detailed impact statement was a central factor the judge cited in accepting the plea. The conditions imposed — a psychosexual evaluation and 0-tolerance drug testing among them — reflect the court's approach to monitoring in cases that involve alleged sexual misconduct and significant victim harm.

Discussion vs. decision: Counsel for the defense and the state discussed the terms and the judge accepted the plea with conditions; the judge emphasized that the acceptance was partly driven by the victim's expressed desire to avoid a trial and the trauma trial testimony would cause.

What happens next: Himes must comply with probation conditions; any single positive drug screen or other material probation violation will trigger revocation and service of the six-year sentence.","Keenan Himes entered a no-contest plea to an amended charge of aggravated assault; the court accepted a negotiated sentence suspending six years to probation and imposed strict conditions after the victim described lasting physical and emotional harm.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5977717,"Judge denies motion to disqualify district attorney's office in Garten prosecution",1000,9046000,10046000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec&start=9046&end=10046","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5810433-91ecae2c19473d33c78a4f2efea59fec/thumbnail_9046000.jpg","/articles/5977717/Tennessee/Judge-denies-motion-to-disqualify-district-attorneys-office-in-Garten-prosecution","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5977717-ea75c1fd1facf52cd790568c6d4d9242/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557559&Signature=BK4BweARvtgG9pDiJ00YBnqtsB6j6Hckc0U7jI6SE1lgDK4Hw4Ro6f21xZPLkaAlq2P7fqRGnSSrmtUkMu82YOCsSIJTNaP5WrQnBUpd-qxlBTgqmb3Wrd9QX6DQwkuOF9dRG3Q3FKunKi05MkN5j1a6rcgObg~FfQW1cHYzxb3wfinfnL9OZqrzVthK5UKWpas6OO7QjhNhL2xCR1HyLPFkRZYXmfB4RKlRQ6RAdUr1WY9QQzEqWDB9r17mPu5KvpMyEWciobrgmAVsxqZa9OmUjjYoGkBvmjfznjzpn9sUleraT8kJeONcXFglj7SXJc64rEXhddXgQVKMOeWZAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A judge on the docket call denied a defense motion to disqualify the Dixon County District Attorney's Office from prosecuting defendant Mr. Garten, ruling the earlier civil litigation and settlement did not require recusal.

The motion, argued by defense counsel Mr. Gordon, said the district attorney's past handling of an unrelated harassment prosecution and a subsequent civil settlement created an appearance — and, the defense argued, actual evidence — of impropriety. \"There has been actual impropriety,\" Mr. Gordon said in court, urging the judge to disqualify the office to preserve public confidence in the process.

Prosecutors and the judge disputed that conclusion. The state told the court that the previous civil matter had been resolved by a settlement and that no finding of wrongdoing was entered against the district attorney, and the judge noted prior rulings in which the same claim had been rejected. The judge adopted those earlier findings and denied the motion, saying the current criminal charges \"do not arise from the facts\" that prompted the civil suit and that disqualification would risk encouraging defendants to try to remove prosecutors by filing civil claims.

Why it matters: The motion raised standard public-integrity and fairness questions that courts address when prior litigation involves a prosecutor or when a defendant has previously sued the prosecutor's office. The judge's ruling means the Dixon County District Attorney's Office will remain the prosecuting authority in the Garten matter unless a higher court intervenes.

Discussion vs. decision: Defense counsel pressed that past events had eroded the appearance of fairness; prosecutors argued the settlement and previous rulings did not show prosecutorial misconduct that would carry over to unrelated criminal charges. The court rejected the defense's arguments and formally denied the disqualification motion.

What happens next: The judge said other pretrial motions remain pending and discussed scheduling options with counsel. The denial preserves the status quo for case preparation and motion practice in Dixon County.","A judge denied a defense motion to disqualify the Dixon County District Attorney's Office from prosecuting a defendant who previously sued the office, saying prior civil settlement and litigation did not show disqualifying impropriety tied to the current criminal charges.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court sets motion days and trial schedule for multi-defendant daycare case transferred from Stuart County

Man pleads guilty to multiple counts; judge imposes lengthy concurrent and consecutive sentences

Defendant pleads no contest to aggravated assault; victim gives lengthy impact statement

Judge denies motion to disqualify district attorney's office in Garten prosecution