Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 27, 2025
Docket09-24-00437-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas (Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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:

1 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. 2 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

3 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

4 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.

5 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.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fabbian Donta Scott v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabbian-donta-scott-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.