Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 27, 2025·No. 09-24-00437-CR·Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-24-00437-CR

NO. 09-24-00438-CR

FABBIAN DONTA SCOTT, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. F21-36748 and F21-36749

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Fabbian Donta Scott appeals his convictions in trial cause numbers F21-36748 and F21-36749 for trafficking of persons, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20A.02(a)(7)(E), (a)(8), (b)(1). In trial cause number F21-36748, a grand jury indictment alleged that on March 1, 2021:

Paragraph One

[Scott] . . . knowingly traffic[ked] [Amy 1], a child younger than 18 years of age and . . . by any means cause[d] [Amy] to engage in or become a victim of conduct prohibited by Texas Penal Code Section 43.02 – Prostitution[; and]

Paragraph Two

[Scott] . . . knowingly receive[d] a benefit from participating in a venture that involved trafficking [Amy], a child younger than 18 years of age and . . . by any means cause[d] [Amy] to engage in or become a victim of conduct prohibited by Texas Penal Code Section 43.02 – Prostitution[.]

In trial cause number F21-36749, a grand jury indictment alleged that on March 1, 2021:

Paragraph One

[Scott] . . . knowingly traffic[ked] [Christy], a child younger than 18 years of age and . . . by any means cause[d] [Christy] to engage in or become a victim of conduct prohibited by Texas Penal Code Section 43.02 – Prostitution[; and]

Paragraph Two

[Scott] . . . knowingly receive[d] a benefit from participating in a venture that involved trafficking [Christy], a child younger than 18 years of age and . . . by any means cause[d] [Christy] to engage in or become a victim of conduct prohibited by Texas Penal Code Section 43.02 – Prostitution[.2]

1 We refer to the victims and witnesses other than law enforcement or medical personnel by pseudonyms. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process”).

2 For each cause number, the jury was instructed that it could find Scott guilty of Trafficking of Persons on either of the two grounds alleged in the indictment. Appellant does not challenge the jury instructions on appeal.

The two causes were consolidated for trial. In both trial cause numbers, Scott pleaded “not guilty.” The jury found Scott guilty as charged in each indictment and in both cases assessed punishment at twenty years of imprisonment. In each case, the trial court sentenced Scott in accordance with the jury’s verdict, and the trial court ordered that the sentences run consecutively. Scott timely filed notices of appeal. In one issue, Scott challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict on each case. We affirm.

Evidence at Trial

Unchallenged Background Facts Established at Trial Amy was 16 years old at the time of the alleged trafficking and Christy was 17 years old at the time of the alleged trafficking. Diane’s Testimony Diane testified that she had attended high school with Amy and Christy and was friends with them during that time. According to Diane, in March of 2021, she would have been almost eighteen years old, and Amy and Christy would have been younger than Diane. Diane testified that Amy was very kind in high school, but she was bullied at school. According to Diane, Amy and her mother did not get along, Amy’s mother was always working, and Amy ran away from home on several occasions in high school, went out with older guys from school and experimented with drugs. Amy’s friend Christy was in the same grade as Amy, and Christy also

argued with her parents who had a problem with Christy’s boyfriend who was older than high school age.

Diane testified that shortly before March 1, 2021, she had to pick up Christy and Amy from a hotel and Diane thought “it was very sketchy[]” and Diane believed that Amy was selling herself for sex. According to Diane, over the years while she was friends with Amy and Christy, Amy’s and Chrisy’s situation “got worse[]” and they began missing school and, when Amy came to school, she appeared to be under the influence of drugs.

On March 1, 2021, Christy called Diane from Christy’s cell phone from a “tattoo house” in Groves. Christy was on the phone for a few seconds, was not making sense, and then someone else Diane did not know picked up the phone. The man asked if Diane could pick up Christy because she was falling asleep, he could not finish her tattoo, he was concerned for her well-being, and he had read messages between Diane and Christy and thought that Diane was a trusted friend of Christy’s. Diane drove to the street named by the man on the phone, and she met a Hispanic man and his wife there. Diane went inside their home and found Christy sleeping, and the Hispanic man and his wife told Diane that Christy had been “up for four days.” Diane put Christy in Diane’s car to take her home, and Christy seemed like she was under the influence of some type of drug and was saying that she was scared, that someone was going to kill her, that she did not know where Amy was, that she

could not leave the house and leave without Amy, and that Diane needed to leave her at the tattoo house. Diane was scared, started crying, and called Amy’s sister, Alyssa, whom Diane believed was the only person that cared for Amy and Christy, and Alyssa could be trusted. Diane told Alyssa that she thought Amy and Christy were in danger. According to Diane, although she felt like Amy and Christy were in a very dangerous or bad situation, she was scared to call the police because she was worried Christy and Amy would get into trouble. On an occasion just before this, Christy had asked Diane to take her to the doctor because Christy believed she had a sexually transmitted disease, and Diane had planned to give her a ride to the doctor but never did “because that’s when the whole situation happened.”

Diane testified that she later spoke to a detective in this case and provided a phone number for the detective to contact Amy and a phone number and email address to contact Christy because Christy’s phone number was not working, and Diane would “chat” with messages similar to texts with Christy through the email address. Diane provided the phone numbers and email addresses at trial. Diane had not spoken with Christy since the reporting of the “tattoo house” incident, but she was still friends with Amy and occasionally contacted her even though Amy lived in another state at the time of trial. Diane testified that she did not know the defendant and had never even heard his name.

Rachel’s Testimony Rachel, Amy’s stepmother, testified that Amy’s biological mother and father divorced about fifteen years before trial. According to Rachel, Amy is autistic and “vulnerable[,]” and when Amy was in high school, she and her best friend at the time, Christy, started making friends “with the wrong type of kids[,]” including older people already out of high school. Rachel noticed changes in Amy’s behavior and Amy was running away from home often “to seek independence[]” despite having a good support network at home. Amy’s mother and father both traveled for work often and the family was growing concerned with Amy running away from home because she could be put in dangerous situations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas (Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Hooper v. State
214 S.W.3d 9 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Williams v. State
235 S.W.3d 742 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Clayton v. State
235 S.W.3d 772 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Margraves v. State
34 S.W.3d 912 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Johnson v. State
871 S.W.2d 183 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Heiselbetz v. State
906 S.W.2d 500 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Brooks v. State
323 S.W.3d 893 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Wirth v. State
361 S.W.3d 694 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2012)
Lucio v. State
351 S.W.3d 878 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Febus v. State
542 S.W.3d 568 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2018)