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 ye ars’ confinement for evading arrest (No. 05-15- 01126-CR); twenty years’ confinement for thef t (No. 05-15-01127-CR); two ye ars’ state jail for credit/debit card abuse (No. 05-15-01128-CR and No. 05-15-01132-CR); twenty years’ confinement for arson, enhanced 1 (No. 05-15-01129-CR); two years’ state jail for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (No. 05-15-01130-CR); fifteen years’ c onfinement 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, e nhanced (No. 05-15-01135-CR); ten years’ confinement for unlawful possession of a fire arm by a felon (No. 05-15- 01136-CR); and twenty years’ confinement for aggravated assault w ith a deadly weapon finding, enhanced (No. 05-15- 01138-CR). On appeal, appellant argues the trial court co mmitted 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 argume nt and issue this memorandum opinion. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. Article 37.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provid es for the reading and entry of the jury’s verdict by the trial court. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 37.04 (West 2006). Under article 37.04, the verdic t 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 en try of the jury’s verdict when a poll is conducted. Id . art. 37.05.

1 Coleman was convicted on November 11, 2005 for aggravated assau lt with a deadly weapon, and the State relied on this prior con viction 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 articl e 37.05 endows a criminal defendant with “the right to have the jury polled,” that right is waived if the de fendant 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 tr ial court read each cau se number and the foreman announced each sentence. The trial court then stated, “If that is , in fact, your unanimous ve rdict, please indicate by raising your hand. (Jury complies.) Please le t the record indicate that the verdict is unanimous.” Appellant argues the trial court’s method fo r 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 releas e of the jurors after the “faulty poll prevented [him] from lodging the objection.” We first note neither side reque sted a polling of the jury. When the trial court sua sponte confirmed that no juror dissented by requesting a show of hands a nd 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.—D allas 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 appell ant’s argument that the “immediate release” of the jury prevented him from lodging an objec tion. Rather, after accep ting the verdicts, the trial court spoke to the jurors for approximately one minute tha nking 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. Accord ingly, we overrule appe llant’s sole issue. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, 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 da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered June 2, 2016.