Christy Lynn Landrum Hamby v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-20-00351-CR
CHRISTY LYNN LANDRUM HAMBY, APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A17795-0809, Honorable Robert W. Kincaid, Jr., Presiding
October 13, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Christy Lynn Landrum Hamby appeals the decision to revoke her community
supervision. The trial court originally convicted and sentenced her for theft of property.
The sentence was suspended, though, and she was placed on community supervision
for ten years. While she served her community supervision, the State moved several
times to suspend it. In its last motion, it alleged that she violated the conditions of her
probation requiring her to supply income tax returns and make monthly payments
covering the supervision fee, court costs and restitution imposed on her. The trial court
found the allegations true, revoked her community supervision, and sentenced her to a
seven-year prison term. She appealed. Her multiple issues concern the sufficiency of
the evidence underlying the trial court’s findings that she violated the aforementioned
conditions of her supervision. We affirm.
We discussed the pertinent standard of review in Sharp v. State, No. 07-19-00409-
CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 7124 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 2, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem.
op., not designated for publication) and apply it here. Under that standard, the violation
of a single term of probation supports a decision to revoke. Id. at *4.
As previously mentioned, one of the conditions the State alleged she violated
concerned the deliverance of income tax returns. This default purportedly occurred for
several years, one of which was 2013. Evidence appears of record illustrating that
appellant was asked about the status of her 2013 return; it had not been delivered.
According to her probation officer, appellant acknowledged filing the return and promised
to deliver it. That promise went unfulfilled. And though appellant had difficulty recalling
whether that exchange with her probation officer ever occurred, the trial court was entitled
to accept the officer’s testimony about the conversation as true. Hacker v. State, 389
S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (stating that “the trial judge is the sole judge of
the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony”). So, there
appears of record some evidence supporting the court’s finding that she violated a term
of her community supervision. That being true and because proof of one violation
supports a decision to revoke, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by
granting the motion to revoke, revoking appellant’s community supervision, and
sentencing appellant to prison.
2
We overrule appellant’s issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3