Judge Revokes Sadie Murphy’s Deferred Probation, Sentences Her to 5 Years in TDCJ

A Jefferson County judge revoked Sadie Yvonne Murphy’s deferred or unadjudicated probation and sentenced her to five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice after Murphy pleaded true to a probation violation and entered a guilty plea in a related new indictment. The judge followed a plea agreement that disposes both matters with concurrent five-year prison terms.

The judge (identified in the record only as the court) told Murphy the court had previously offered deferred probation but that recent incident reports prompted the state to withdraw that offer. The state’s attorney—citing incident reports accessed through the jail records system Odysee—told the court the reports go back to Murphy’s first incarceration and include fights, violent incidents and at least one recent attempt at self-harm. The prosecutor said some of the reports date to December 2024 and as recently as March 9, 2025, and February 20, 2025; counsel said reports are difficult to transfer but that a stack of incident reports had been printed for the court’s review.

Defense attorney Langston Adams confirmed representation. The court read a first amended motion to revoke unadjudicated probation (cause number 24CR1187) alleging, among other things, that Murphy committed an assault of a public servant on or about Aug. 13, 2024 (indicted in case 24CR1984). Murphy answered “true” to the probation-violation allegation and acknowledged she understood that pleading true to one or more violations could support revocation and imprisonment. The court found the allegation proven by a preponderance of the evidence, revoked probation and found Murphy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the previously deferred offense.

Under the parties’ agreement, the court adjudicated Murphy guilty and sentenced her to five years’ confinement in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; the sentence will run concurrently with a five-year sentence in the new case, 24CR1984. The court advised Murphy she would have no right of appeal under the terms of the agreement and set the matter concluded for sentencing purposes.

During the hearing the judge repeatedly emphasized safety concerns and the jail records the state presented. “If you make bad choices, then you’re gonna be punished,” the judge said, adding that assaults in custody and aggressive behavior pose risks in a jail setting where staff must maintain control. The prosecutor told the court that reports showed repeated violent incidents since Murphy’s first incarceration in mid‑2024 and that the state had pulled the prior deferred‑probation offer based on those incidents.

The court also noted the existence of a competency or evaluation report that had been filed and requested counsel make that report part of the file for the upcoming motion to revoke hearing; the judge scheduled a final disposition within about two weeks before announcing the court would follow the newly reached plea agreement. The transcript records the court’s finding that the evidence supporting the original guilty plea had been admitted as State’s Exhibit 1 in earlier proceedings and that the defendant was mentally competent to enter pleas in the matters.

The proceedings on these two cases concluded with the imposition of the concurrent five‑year terms as described; the court record reflects the executed plea agreement and sentences.