Clayton County State Court accepts multiple DUI pleas, orders DUI‑court conditions and community service

Judge Tammy Long Hayward presided over the Clayton County State Court jail and arraignment calendar on July 1, 2025, where prosecutors and defense lawyers announced negotiated pleas in several DUI-related matters.

The court accepted a plea from Jovan Eric Barnett (case details discussed in courtroom); in a separate matter, Thomas Lee Bennett pleaded guilty to DUI charges. William Tipton, the prosecutor, summarized the state’s factual basis in Bennett’s case, saying deputies observed clues of intoxication and that Bennett had previously been convicted of a DUI in 2009. The court accepted a negotiated sentence that included 12 months with a short jail term credited for time served, probation with DUI‑court enrollment and random drug and alcohol testing, required a substance‑abuse evaluation and recommended treatment, a risk‑reduction course, hundreds of hours of community service and fines and surcharges. Judge Hayward told Bennett, “Please take seriously the requirements of DUI court,” and directed intake and probation staff to place him into the DUI program and testing regimen.

In another case, the court accepted a plea by Dartania Aldano Brooks to DUI‑related counts. The state recommended, and the judge imposed, a sentence with a brief jail term credited to time served, 12 months probated supervision with continued DUI‑court conditions, a substance‑abuse evaluation, a risk‑reduction course, 40 hours of community service and a monetary fine.

Marcus Cleave Jackson entered guilty pleas to DUI‑related charges under a negotiated disposition. The court imposed 12 months with one day served and the balance probated, ordered participation in the county’s DUI program, random screens for alcohol and drugs, 40 hours of community service and a fine; the state agreed to no‑prosecute other related counts as part of the plea.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys told the court the sentences were negotiated to include treatment and monitoring components designed to keep defendants in community‑supervision programs rather than custody when practicable. The judge repeatedly emphasized that probation reporting and compliance with testing requirements are essential; she warned that failure to report or new offenses could trigger revocation and jail time.

The court directed each defendant to complete intake with probation staff (Probation Officer James and Mr. Austin were named on the record) and to follow probation’s reporting schedule so the cases can be monitored and the defendants can be considered for completion of supervision when conditions are met.