Affirmed and Opinion Filed June 2, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01126-CR 

No. 05-15-01127-CR 

No. 05-15-01128-CR 

No. 05-15-01129-CR 

No. 05-15-01130-CR 

No. 05-15-01131-CR 

No. 05-15-01132-CR 

No. 05-15-01133-CR 

No. 05-15-01134-CR 

No. 05-15-01135-CR 

No. 05-15-01136-CR 

No. 05-15-01138-CR 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 366-80672-2014; 366-80673-2014; 366-81074-2014; 366-81075-2014; 

366-81076-2014; 366-81077-2014; 366-81078-2014; 366-81192-2013; 366-81193-2013; 

366-81194-2013; 366-81195-2013; 366-80674-2014 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Lang 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Appellant William Chad Coleman pleaded guilty to twelve indictments that arose from 

two separate criminal episodes on March 18, 2013 and February 6, 2014. After a hearing, the 
 –2– 

jury assessed punishment as follows: twenty years’ confinement for evading arrest (No. 05-15-

01126-CR); twenty years’ confinement for theft (No. 05-15-01127-CR); two years’ state jail for 

credit/debit card abuse (No. 05-15-01128-CR and No. 05-15-01132-CR); twenty years’ 

confinement for arson, enhanced1

 (No. 05-15-01129-CR); two years’ state jail for unauthorized 

use of a motor vehicle (No. 05-15-01130-CR); fifteen years’ confinement for burglary of a 

habitation (No. 05-15-01131-CR); life imprisonment for aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon, enhanced (No. 05-15-01133-CR); two years’ state jail for cruelty to animals (No. 05-15-

01134-CR); life imprisonment for arson, enhanced (No. 05-15-01135-CR); ten years’ 

confinement for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (No. 05-15-01136-CR); and twenty 

years’ confinement for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon finding, enhanced (No. 05-15-

01138-CR). 

On appeal, appellant argues the trial court committed reversible error by not polling the 

jury on each individual sentence. Because the underlying facts are not relevant for disposition of 

the appeal, we include only those necessary to resolve his argument and issue this memorandum 

opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Article 37.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the reading and entry 

of the jury’s verdict by the trial court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.04 (West 2006). 

Under article 37.04, the verdict is entered into the minutes of the court if it is in proper form, no 

juror dissents, and neither party requests a poll of the jury. Id. Article 37.05 establishes the 

parties’ right to have the jury polled and governs the process for entry of the jury’s verdict when 

a poll is conducted. Id. art. 37.05. 

 1

 Coleman was convicted on November 11, 2005 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the State relied on this prior conviction 

to also enhance the charges against him in No. 05-15-01133-CR, No. 05-15-01135-CR, and No. 05-15-01138-CR. 
 –3– 

The purpose of the jury poll is to ensure the unanimity of the jury verdict by establishing 

that each juror agrees with the verdict as announced. See Ex parte Aviles, 78 S.W.3d 677, 683 

(Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). Although article 37.05 endows a criminal defendant with 

“the right to have the jury polled,” that right is waived if the defendant fails to properly request 

the poll. Cook v. State, 390 S.W.3d 363, 373 n.30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Mathis v. 

State, 471 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)). 

After the jury reached its verdicts, the trial court said, “Mr. Foreman, it’s my 

understanding that the jury has reached a unanimous verdict in all counts,” to which the foreman 

answered affirmatively. The trial court read each cause number and the foreman announced each 

sentence. The trial court then stated, “If that is, in fact, your unanimous verdict, please indicate 

by raising your hand. (Jury complies.) Please let the record indicate that the verdict is 

unanimous.” 

Appellant argues the trial court’s method for polling the jury failed to assure jury 

unanimity, and he was entitled to have the jury polled on each individual verdict rather than only 

once. He concedes he did not object to the trial court’s failure to poll the jury on each separate 

verdict but argues the trial court’s immediate release of the jurors after the “faulty poll prevented 

[him] from lodging the objection.” 

We first note neither side requested a polling of the jury. When the trial court sua sponte 

confirmed that no juror dissented by requesting a show of hands and then accepted the verdict, it 

complied with article 37.04 of the code of criminal procedure. See Knight v. State, No. 05-01-

01586-CR, 2002 WL 31513377, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 13, 2002, no pet.) (not 

designated for publication). If appellant wanted the jury polled on each individual verdict, it was 

incumbent upon him to object. See Cook, 390 S.W.3d at 373 n.30. This he failed to do; 

therefore, appellant waived his issue for review. Locke v. State, No. 06-06-00210-CR, 2007 WL 
 –4– 

1890689, at *3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 3, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

designation); Andrews v. State, No. 05-92-00411-CR, 1993 WL 19931, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

Jan. 29, 1993, no pet.) (not designated for publication). 

In reaching this conclusion, we reject appellant’s argument that the “immediate release” 

of the jury prevented him from lodging an objection. Rather, after accepting the verdicts, the 

trial court spoke to the jurors for approximately one minute thanking them for their service and 

noting some “housekeeping matters that we’re going to tend to.” The trial court then told the 

jury they were welcome to stay. Nothing in the record indicates appellant could not have timely 

objected and requested a jury poll. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole issue. 

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

151126F.U05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01126-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80672-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01127-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80673-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –7– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01128-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81074-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –8– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01129-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81075-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –9– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01130-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81076-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –10– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01131-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81077-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –11– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01132-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81078-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –12– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01133-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81192-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –13– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01134-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81193-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –14– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01135-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81194-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –15– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01136-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-81195-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016. 

 
 –16– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01138-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80674-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered June 2, 2016.