Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Christopher Davontae Bennett v. the State of Texas

Docket 03-25-00517-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Texas
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Type
Lead Opinion
Disposition
Affirmed
Docket
03-25-00517-CR

Appeal from an adjudication of guilt and sentence following a revocation/adjudication hearing after a deferred-finding community supervision for sexual assault of a child

Summary

The Texas Third Court of Appeals reviewed Christopher Devontae Bennett’s appeal after the trial court adjudicated his guilt for sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to 18 years’ confinement following violations of court-ordered community supervision. Bennett’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders brief stating the appeal is frivolous. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no arguable grounds for reversal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s adjudication and sentence. The court advised Bennett of his rights and noted he filed no pro se brief.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the trial court erred in adjudicating guilt and imposing an 18-year sentence after Bennett pled true to alleged community supervision violations.
  • Whether any arguable grounds exist to challenge the revocation/adjudication proceedings or resulting sentence on appeal.

Court's Reasoning

Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief and the court conducted an independent review of the record. The court found no arguable legal or factual errors that could support reversal of the trial court’s adjudication or sentence. Because no colorable claims were identified, the court concluded the appeal was frivolous and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Authorities Cited

  • Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
  • Garner v. State300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
  • Penson v. Ohio488 U.S. 75 (1988)
  • Kelly v. State436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

Parties

Appellant
Christopher Davontae Bennett
Appellee
The State of Texas
Judge
Debbie Garrett
Judge
Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Key Dates

Opinion filed
2026-04-24

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consider petitioning for discretionary review

    If Bennett wants further review, he or counsel should file a petition for discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within the applicable deadline and follow appellate rules.

  2. 2

    Consult appellate counsel about options

    Bennett should consult his attorney to confirm deadlines, discuss grounds (if any) for further review, or explore post-conviction remedies such as state habeas applications if applicable.

  3. 3

    Prepare for incarceration requirements

    Because the sentence is affirmed, Bennett or his counsel should ensure compliance with commitment paperwork and begin planning for confinement logistics and any applicable administrative steps.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt and the 18-year sentence, finding no arguable issues on appeal.
Why didn’t the court find issues to reverse the conviction?
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and the court independently reviewed the record, concluding there were no non-frivolous legal or factual claims that could support reversal.
Can Bennett still seek further review?
Bennett could seek discretionary review (for example, file a petition for review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals), but the opinion notes he was informed of that right and filed no pro se brief in this court.
Who is affected by this decision?
Bennett is directly affected because his adjudication and 18-year sentence are affirmed; the decision does not change the legal rules beyond this case.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



                                     NO. 03-25-00517-CR



                          Christopher Davontae Bennett, Appellant

                                                v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee


                FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
         NO. FR75556, THE HONORABLE DEBBIE GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING



                            MEMORANDUM OPINION


               Christopher Devontae Bennett entered a guilty plea to sexual assault of a child.

The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Bennett on community supervision for eight

years. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2)A). The State subsequently moved to adjudicate

Bennett’s guilt, alleging he violated terms of the community supervision order. Bennett pled true

to several alleged violations, and the trial court found those alleged violations true, adjudicated

Bennett’s guilt, and sentenced him to confinement for eighteen years in the Institutional Division

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.          Bennett filed a timely notice of appeal.

Bennett’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an

Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Bennett’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the requirements

of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are
no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs

serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the

required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Bennett’s counsel has

represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Bennett; advised

Bennett of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary

review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court. He also provided to Bennett a

Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only Bennett’s signature and the date

and provided the mailing address for this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Bennett has not filed a pro se brief nor a motion for extension of time

to file a brief.

                   We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might

arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We

agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.



                                               __________________________________________
                                               Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: April 24, 2026

Do Not Publish




                                                  2