Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Ray Myatt

TENNCRIMAPPJanuary 24, 2020No. M2018-01466-CCA-R3-CD
Mixed ResultRonnie Ray Myatt

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Alan E. Glenn
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Ronnie Ray Myatt, appeals the judgments of the trial court following a June 25, 2018 probation violation hearing in which the court revoked his probation in case numbers CR7357, CR7358A, and 22CC-2010-CR-115. The Defendant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in the first two cases because the sentences for those cases had expired prior to the filing of the revocation warrant. The Defendant also requests that we remand to the trial court for entry of a modified judgment in case number 22CC-2010-CR-115 to award to the Defendant applicable jail credits. The State concedes that the sentences in case numbers CR7357 and CR7358A expired before the filing of the instant revocation warrant and that the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to revoke the probation in those cases. Although not raised as an issue by the Defendant, the State argues that the trial court appropriately revoked the Defendant's probation in Case Number 22CC-2010-CR-115. Following our review, we reverse the probation revocation orders in case numbers CR7357 and CR7358A, affirm the revocation of probation in case number 22CC-2010-CR-115, and remand to the trial court for determination of the appropriate jail credits to be applied toward the Defendant's sentence in the latter case.

What This Ruling Means

This case appears to involve a criminal matter rather than an employment law dispute. Ronnie Ray Myatt was appealing court decisions related to probation violations in multiple criminal cases from 2010 and 2018. Myatt argued that the trial court didn't have the authority to revoke his probation in two of the cases because the sentences had already expired before the revocation warrant was filed. The court's decision is listed as "mixed," meaning Myatt likely won on some issues but not others. The case involved questions about court jurisdiction and timing of legal proceedings rather than workplace rights or employer-employee relationships. **What this means for workers:** This case doesn't actually relate to employment law, despite the initial classification. It's a criminal appeals case about probation violations. Workers looking for guidance on employment rights, workplace disputes, wages, discrimination, or other job-related legal issues should look to actual employment law cases instead. This appears to be a misclassification in the legal database. For employment law guidance, workers should focus on cases involving workplace discrimination, wage disputes, wrongful termination, or violations of labor standards.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.