Terry William Strachan v. The State of Texas Appeal from 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County (memorandum opinion by chief justice wright)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed in part; Affirmed as Modified in part and Opinion Filed December 7, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00707-CR No. 05-14-00708-CR No. 05-14-00709-CR TERRY WILLIAM STRACHAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 296-80709-2013, 296-80710-2013, and 296-80940-2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Fillmore and Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Terry William Strachan waived a jury and pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a vehicle, evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, and possession of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1 between one gram and four grams.1 After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at two, eight, and eight years confinement, respectively, with 454 days of back credit and no fine. The sentences were to run concurrently. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief 1 This Court’s cause number 05-14-00708-CR and the trial court’s cause number 296-80710-2013 contain the unauthorized use of a vehicle judgment. This Court’s cause number 05-14-00707-CR and the trial court’s cause number 296-80709-2013 contain the evading arrest or detention with a vehicle judgment. This Court’s cause number 05-14-00709-CR and the trial court’s cause number 296-80940-2013 contain the possession of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1 between one gram and four grams judgment. meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable ground to advance, we note there is an error in the trial court’s judgments in cause numbers 05-14-00707-CR and 05-14-00709-CR. The record shows the appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true. The written judgments in these cases, however, recite no information for appellant’s plea to the enhancement paragraphs or the trial court’s findings on the enhancement paragraphs. Thus the written judgments are incorrect in these cases. This Court has the authority to correct a trial court’s judgment when it has the necessary data and information to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). We modify the written judgments in cause numbers 05-14-00707-CR and 05-14-00709-CR to show appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true. –2– As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in cause numbers 05-14-00707-CR and 05-14-00709-CR. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in cause number 05-14-00708-CR. Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 140707F.U05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TERRY WILLIAM STRACHAN, Appellant No. 05-14-00707-CR On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-80709-2013. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 7, 2015. –4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TERRY WILLIAM STRACHAN, Appellant No. 05-14-00708-CR On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-80710-2013. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 7, 2015. –5– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TERRY WILLIAM STRACHAN, Appellant No. 05-14-00709-CR On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-80940-2013. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 7, 2015. –6–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.