State v. Sammy Carl Williams, 477 S.W.3d 442

Background

Sammy Carl Williams was tried on five felony counts arising from a car collision that seriously injured members of the Mata family; juries convicted him on all five counts and found deadly-weapon enhancements.
After a punishment hearing, the jury returned punishments and on each punishment form found Williams’s sworn motion for community supervision true and recommended community supervision.
The trial court read the punishment verdicts aloud, asked whether there was a request to poll the jury, and both parties declined; the court then sentenced Williams in accordance with the verdicts.
After sentencing, the State’s attorney sought to poll the jury and challenged that the written verdicts reflected the jury’s true intention; the trial court denied a mistrial.
The State appealed on seven grounds: six challenging the post-verdict/polling process and whether the verdicts reflected the jury’s intent (and the legality of sentence given deadly-weapon findings), and one challenging consolidation of three indictments for trial.
The court dismissed the State’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the State’s challenges attacked the procedure leading to the verdict (not an illegal sentence) and consolidation did not constitute a dismissal of indictments under the statutory appeal provision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Williams)	Held
1. Failure to poll jury after verdict/sentence	Trial court should have polled jury after verdict when requested; verdict may not be unanimous	Verdict was received, presiding juror confirmed unanimity, parties declined polling	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; complaint concerns verdict procedure, not an appealable sentence
2. Written verdict not jury’s true intention / jury confusion	The verdict forms did not reflect jury intent; jury was confused	Trial court ascertained unanimity from presiding juror; verdicts were read and accepted	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; procedural challenge not an appeal of sentence
3. Trial court should have ordered further deliberation or found verdict not assented by all jurors	Court erred by not sending jury back to deliberate when confusion suspected	Court properly received verdict and ascertained unanimity; no timely request to poll	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; procedural issue, not an illegal sentence
4. Sentence illegal because deadly-weapon finding conflicts with probation grant	Deadly-weapon finding makes probation unlawful, so sentence illegal	Sentences imposed fell within statutory ranges; State’s complaints about process underlie claim	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; State actually attacks the process of obtaining verdicts, not the sentence’s legality
5. Manifest injustice warrants new trial	Verdicts manifestly unjust given jury confusion and post-verdict statements	Jury formally returned verdicts; trial court followed procedure; no timely challenge	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; procedural challenge beyond State’s limited appeal rights
6. Consolidation of three indictments was improper (dismissal theory)	Consolidation effectively dismissed two indictments, permitting appeal under art. 44.01(a)(1)	Consolidation did not dismiss charges; defendant pleaded to all charges and convictions were entered on each count	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; consolidation is not a dismissal for purposes of art. 44.01(a)(1)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655 (court must determine jurisdiction before proceeding)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (right to appeal is statutory)
State v. Baize, 981 S.W.2d 204 (distinguishing appeal of sentence vs. procedure leading to punishment)
State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 748 (jurisdiction turns on whether State appeals a "sentence")
State v. Kersh, 127 S.W.3d 775 (definition of sentence: facts of punishment, duration, concurrency, fines)
State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892 (overruling on other grounds; jurisdictional context)