Jerry Strange v. State, 05-15-01326-CR

Appellant Jerry Strange pleaded guilty to two ATM-related offenses: attempted theft (indicted as a third-degree felony via attempt) and theft (second-degree), each with an enhancement paragraph alleging prior felonies. The enhancements exposed him to elevated punishment ranges.
At multiple admonishment hearings the trial court and counsel were confused by form language; the court at times misstated degrees and ranges for the offenses before ultimately correctly explaining the enhanced ranges.
Strange elected to enter open guilty pleas (rejecting several State offers), pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs, and confirmed he understood the ranges and consequences after consulting with counsel.
At sentencing the court imposed 20 years’ imprisonment on each count and a $1,000 fine on the theft conviction.
On appeal Strange argued (1) his pleas were involuntary because the court’s inconsistent and incorrect explanations prevented him from understanding the charges and punishment ranges, and (2) the attempted-theft judgment contained errors (wrong offense description, wrong degree, and an improper fine).
The court of appeals concluded the record as a whole showed Strange knowingly and voluntarily entered his pleas, modified both judgments to correct clerical errors (including changing the attempted-theft judgment to attempted theft, 3rd-degree felony, deleting the $1,000 fine, and reflecting findings of the enhancement paragraphs), and affirmed as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Strange)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Strange's guilty pleas were involuntary because of the trial court's inconsistent/misstated admonishments	Trial court’s repeated incorrect explanations about charge type, degree, and punishment range prevented Strange from understanding the nature and consequences of his pleas	Even though the court initially misstated things, the record (written plea forms, indictments, later correct oral admonishments, trial testimony, and Strange’s own acknowledgments) shows he was aware of charges and ranges and waived rights knowingly	Held: Pleas were voluntary; record shows adequate awareness of nature and punishment, so due-process claim denied
Whether the attempted-theft judgment should be corrected to reflect the true offense, degree, and eliminate an improper fine	Judgment incorrectly lists the offense as theft (not attempted theft), labels it a second-degree felony, and includes a $1,000 fine	State agreed the judgment contained clerical errors and should be modified to reflect attempted theft, 3rd-degree felony, delete the fine, and reflect true findings on enhancements	Held: Court modified the attempted-theft judgment (and both judgments to show enhancements found true) and affirmed as modified

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (recognition that a guilty plea waives constitutional rights and must be voluntary)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (pleas must be voluntary, with awareness of consequences)
Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App.) (a silent or confusing record about punishment does not automatically invalidate a plea where the record otherwise affirmatively shows awareness)
Ex parte Palmberg, 491 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App.) (due-process requirements for informed guilty pleas)