1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00176-CR

NO. 09-22-00177-CR

__________________

CHADRICK EUGENE BRADLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 20-01-00617-CR and 21-02-02579-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

After a jury found Chadrick Eugene Bradley guilty of the offense of 

“Assault Family Violence Strangulation Enhanced” in trial court cause 

number 20-01-00617-CR and guilty of “Assault Causes Bodily Injury 

Family Violence Enhanced” in trial court cause number 21-02-02579-CR, 
2

Bradley appealed.1 Six months before the trial, the trial court 

consolidated the cases, and it then tried them in a single action before 

signing separate judgments of conviction, that is a judgmenttied to the

indictment in each case. 

Although the appeals are filed separately, the briefs Bradley filed 

in the appeals raise the same issues, supported by the same arguments. 

In Bradley’s first issue, he argues “the trial court erred by conducting [a] 

hearing on [his] Motion for New Trial without his presence[.]” In his 

second issue, he contends the trial court erred “by not properly advising 

[him] of his right to counsel and the risks of representing himself at trial.”

As to Bradley’s first issue, we conclude that because Bradley 

(through his attorney) did not raise a timely objection to the fact he

wasn’t present for the hearing on the motion for new trial, his right to 

appellate review was forfeited. As to Bradley’s second issue, the record 

shows that Bradley was represented by an attorney in the guilt1In trial court cause number 20-01-00617-CR, the jury assessed a 

thirty-five-year sentence, and the judgment the trial court signed is 

consistent with the jury’s verdict. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b-3). 

In trial court cause number 21-02-02579-CR, the jury assessed a twentyfive-year sentence, and the judgment the trial court signed is consistent 

with the jury’s verdict. See id. § 22.01(b)(2)(A). 
3

innocence phase of the trial, in the first punishment hearing, and in the 

second punishmenthearing, a hearing that occurred after the trial court 

granted Bradley’s motion for new trial in part, as to punishment only. 

That said, the record also shows that Bradley did represent himself 

in a single hearing, a hearing on his pro se motion to disqualify the judge 

of the 221st District Court. The hearing on that motion was conducted 

before a judge assigned to hear the motion by the regional administrative 

judge. Following the hearing on the motion to disqualify, the judge 

assigned to hear the motion denied Bradley’s motion. Consequently, 

Bradley’s second punishment hearing (like the first phase of his trial and 

his first punishment hearing) was conducted by the judge of the 221st 

District Court. Bradley was represented by an attorney in the second 

punishment hearing, which was not tried before the same jury that he 

found him guilty under the indictments charging him with familyviolence assault. 

As to Bradley’s second issue, we conclude that Bradley’s argument

that he was not properly warned of the dangers of representing himself 

before representing himself in the hearing on his pro se motion to 

disqualify the judge of the 221st District Court lacks merit. Because 
4

Bradley’s issues were either not properly preserved or lack merit, 

judgments in trial court causes 20-01-00617-CR and 21-02-02579-CR are 

affirmed. 

Background

In two indictments, one filed in March 2020 and the other in 

February 2021, a Montgomery County grand jury indicted Bradley, 

alleging in both indictments that he assaulted Annette, a person with 

whom he has or had a dating relationship.2 The indictment in cause 

number 20-01-00617-CR alleged that Bradley assaulted Annette by 

“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing 

or circulation of the blood of [Annette], by applying pressure to 

[Annette’s] throat or neck or blocking [Annette’s] nose or mouth.” The 

indictment in trial court cause number 21-02-02579-CR, alleged that 

2Annette is a pseudonym. SeeTex. Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime 

victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the 

victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process”). 

Both indictments also allege that Bradley had prior convictions for 

family-violence assault. See id. § 22.01(b)(2)(A), (b-3). Both indictments 

include enhancement counts, which allege that Bradley had committed 

two prior sequenced felonies,which had become final before the primary 

offense, one for tampering with evidence and the other for manufacturing 

or delivering a controlled substance. 
5

Bradley assaulted Annette “by striking her with [his] hand and striking 

with a blunt object.” 

In January 2020, the trial court appointed Robert Bartlett to 

represent Bradley in the case filed in 2020, cause number 20-01-00617-

CR. Later, the trial court appointed Bartlett to represent Bradley in the 

case filed in 2021, cause number 21-02-02579-CR. Six months before the 

trial and without objection, the trial court consolidated the cases for trial. 

In August 2021, the case was called for trial. Bradley pleaded not 

guilty. After hearing the evidence, however, the jury found Bradley guilty 

as alleged in the indictments of having committed both offenses. 

Bradley chose to let the jury assess his punishment. After the jury 

heard the punishment evidence, it found the enhancement allegations 

“true” and decided that on each of his convictions for family-violence 

assault, as enhanced by prior convictions, Bradley should serve a sixtyyear sentence.3 Following the trial, the trial court signed judgments

consistent with the jury’s verdicts. 

3See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (enhancing the punishment 

range for a defendant who has previously been convicted of two felony 

offenses to life in prison, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less 

than 25 years).
6

The day the judgments were signed, the trial court granted the 

motions to withdraw, filed by Robert Bartlett. The trial court appointed 

Robbie Barkeras Bradley’s attorney to represent him in “all litigation in 

the trial court through and including a ruling on a Motion for New Trial, 

and filing a notice of appeal[.]” 

Around three weeks after Barker was appointed as Bradley’s 

attorney, Barker filed motions for new trial in Bradley’s cases. In 

identical motions, Barker alleged that Bradley was entitled to a new trial 

because “a juror received extraneous evidence that [Bradley] had a 

pending charge of sexual assault.” The motions for new trial also claimed 

that the “information influenced the juror’s decision to convict[,] . . . 

influenced the juror’s decision on sentencing[,]” and “caused the juror to 

engage in juror misconduct,” which Barker claimed resulted in Bradley 

not receiving “a fair and impartial trial.” 

In November 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Bradley’s 

motions. Barker appeared at the hearing, but Bradley was not present. 

Barker argued the motions in the two case. She didn’t object that Bradley 

was not present for the hearing. From the discussion during the hearing, 

it’s apparent that in a prior hearing,the trial court had permitted Barker 
7

to contact the jurors in Bradley’s trial.4 In the November hearing, the 

judge also told Barker and the prosecutor that the court was aware that 

two of the jurors that Barker had spoken to had given her affidavits.5The 

transcript reflects the trial court had seen the affidavits of the jurors, but 

Barker never offered the jurors’ affidavits into evidence during the 

hearing. The jurors’ affidavits are also not attached to the motion for new 

trial that Barker filed in Bradley’s cases.6

During the hearing, the prosecutor argued that if the affidavits 

were being offered as exhibits under an exception to Rule 606(b) of the 

Texas Rules of Evidence, they would be inadmissible. According to the 

4The appellate record doesn’t include a transcript of the hearing in 

which the trial court gave Barker permission to contact the jury in 

Barker’s trial, but in the November hearing, the judge stated that the 

court had given Barker “permission to address and talk to the jurors to 

see if they had somehow been unduly influenced.” 

5Affidavits from two of the jurors from Bradley’s trial appear in the 

Clerk’s Record. We assume these are the two affidavits the trial court 

was referring to in the hearing on the motion for new trial. 

6In September 2021 when Barker initially filed the motion for new 

trial, she hadn’t received the trial court’s permission to speak to the 

jurors and didn’t have any affidavits from any jurors to file with the 

motion. The only place the jurors’ affidavits appear in the Clerks’ Record 

are as exhibits to the pro se motion Bradley filed to disqualify the judge 

of the 221st District Court, which he filed on May 5, 2022. The jurors’

affidavits, which are in the Clerk’s Record at page 280 and 281 in appeal 

number 09-22-00176-CR, were signed by the jurors before a notary on 

November 4, 2021. 
8

prosecutor, Rule 606(b) generally prohibits a juror from testifying “about 

any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s 

deliberations[.]”7

Even though the affidavits weren’t admitted into evidence in the 

November hearing, they are in the Clerk’s Record. And it’s clear the trial 

court considered them when it ruled on Bradley’s motions since the trial 

court said: “[T]he fact that two of [the] jurors are saying that they saw 

something, that is compelling.” Butthe trial court also stated: “There is 

no evidence to suggest that anything was done erroneously, by my 

knowledge, in the guilt/innocence phase.”8 We note that both jurors’ 

affidavits address deliberations in the punishment phase of the trial: 

That is, nothing in either affidavit indicates that either juror claims to 

7Tex. R. Evid. 606(b).

8We agree with the trial court that nothing in the jurors’ affidavits 

suggests that any jurors saw or discussed documents when deliberating 

on a verdict that were not admitted into evidence during the guiltinnocence phase of Bradley’s trial. Since the State did not appeal from 

the trial court’s ruling on Bradley’s motion for new trial, we express no 

opinion about whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering 

affidavits not offered into evidence in the hearing the trial court 

conducted on Bradley’s motion for new trial or whether the trial court 

would have abused its discretion by admitting the affidavits over the 

State’s objection claiming they were inadmissible under the exceptions to 

Rule 606(b), Texas Rules of Evidence.
9

have seen evidence the trial court didn’t admit into evidence while 

deliberating on its verdict during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. 

The trial court’s ruling appears to have been based on the 

information in the two jurors’ affidavits, even though the affidavits were 

never offered or admitted into evidence. We reach that conclusion 

because the trial court told Barker and the prosecutor that the trial court 

believed the jury in the punishment phase of the trial had been exposed 

to information not in evidence and because the trial court said the 

information in the affidavits “had an impact on their decision[.]”So under 

the circumstances and based on the conclusions the trial court apparently 

chose to draw in the hearing about what the jury did in deciding that 

Bradley should serve sixty-year sentences on each of his convictions, the 

trial court told the attorneys that it would “grant [Bradley’s] motion for 

new trial as to - - only as to punishment.”9

9Bradley’s trial occurred while the trial court was applying the 

Texas Supreme Court’s Emergency Rules, applicable during the period 

that applied to the pandemic, Covid-19. Consequently, the jury 

deliberations occurred in the courtroom rather than in the smaller room 

of the court. From the transcript of the hearing, our understanding is 

that documents that didn’t belong with Bradley’s case were allowed to 

remain in the courtroom when the court left the jury in the courtroom to 

deliberate on its verdict, apparently during the punishment phase of the 

trial. One of the juror’s affidavits states that during the punishment 
10

Following the hearing, the trial court signed an order granting 

Bradley a new trial “as to punishment only.” In August 2021, the trial 

court reappointed Robert Bartlett to represent Bradley in the retrial of 

the punishment phase of his two cases, trial court causes 20-01-00617-

CR and 21-02-02579-CR. 

On April 21, 2022, Bradley filed a pro se motion for new trial. In his 

motion, Bradley complained that he wasn’t present when, in November 

2021, the trial court heard his motion for new trial—the motion handled 

by his court-appointed attorney, Barker. On April 26, the trial court 

conducted a hearing on Bradley’s pro se motion for new trial. In that

hearing, Bartlett (by then reappointed as Bradley’s attorney, although 

Barker was also present) told the trial court that he and Bradley had 

phase of Bradley’s case, on a “ledge near the judge’s bench,” there “was 

paperwork that included additional felony charges that were not 

presented by either side during the trial.” According to this juror, “[a] 

couple of jurors read the additional charges out loud to the rest of the 

jurors[.]” The other juror’s affidavit states that in the punishment phase 

of Bradley’s trial, “[o]n a bench in front of the court reporter’s seat, there 

was paperwork that included a charge of misconduct with a minor and 

other charges[,]” but the paperwork “did not have a name on the paper.”

Both jurors’ affidavits explain that, during deliberations, several jurors 

read and discussed these documents with the other jurors. 
11

disagreed about some matters but had nonetheless “overcome our 

difficulties.”

Bartlett then asked Bradley whether Bradleywanted to “keep [him] 

for [the punishment] part of the trial[.]” Bradley responded: “Yes, sir.” As

the hearing continued, however, Bradley told the trial court that he felt 

that Bartlett was “not representing me to the fullest.” Bradley explained

that he felt the trial court was biased, and he told the trial court that 

Bartlett was “not willing to push” that theory. Then Bradley said: “I 

would rather represent myself.” 

After Bradley invoked his right to self-representation, the trial 

judge told Bradley that she had granted his request and given him a new 

trial on punishment in the two cases because the evidence showed that

documents, not in evidence, were seen by jurors only in the punishment 

phase of his trial. Even so, the trial court told Bradley that he still had 

“every right to represent himself.”

The trial court then determined Bradley had (1) obtained a GED, 

(2) held a license as a barber, (3) was 46 years old, (4) had experience in 

the courts (including here), (5) had never been found incompetent, (6) 

could read and write, and (7) could not afford to hire an attorney. The 
12

trial court granted Bradley’s request to represent himself, advising 

Bradley the court would allow Bartlett to be present in court as standby 

counsel when the cases were retried, but Bartlett would be serving 

Bradley in an advisory capacity only. 

Two days later, the trial court conducted another hearing. In this 

hearing, the trial court warned Bradley further about the disadvantages 

of representing himself. Bartlett was present as standby counsel at this

hearing. The trial court told Bradley he would be required to follow the 

procedures used in a trial to call and question witnesses, “just like a 

regular trial.” The trial court also told Bradley that when he wanted to 

object, he needed to stand up to do so, just like the prosecutor. And the 

judge explained if Bradley had questions, he could ask Bartlett to help 

him in Bartlett’s role as standby counsel, but that Bartlett couldn’t 

question witnesses or speak on his behalf unless Bradley allowed Bartlett 

to “step in and take over - - which I have had happen before.” 

That same day, April 28, 2022, Bradley signed a form in which he 

acknowledged he had been advised of his right to counsel, that counsel 

would be appointed for free if he could not afford counsel, and that after 

being advised of the charges pending against him, he still wanted to 
13

proceed pro se and waive his right to counsel.Bradley signed his name to 

the form below statements advising of the dangers of self-representation. 

Just below Bradley’s signature, the form contains the trial court’s

findings of fact. The trial court’s findings include a finding that Bradley 

was of “sufficient age, background, and education to understand the 

implications and dangers of self-representation.” 

On May 5, 2022, Bradley filed a pro se motion to disqualify the 

judge of the 221st District Court from presiding over his cases. Several 

weeks later, a judge assigned by the regional administrative judge 

conducted a hearing on Bradley’s motion. In the motion,Bradley alleged

that the trial court was “biased,” could not give him a “fair trial[.]” 

Bradley’s motion sought to disqualify the judge of the 221st District 

Court, claiming she should be disqualified because, as an assistant 

prosecutor employed by the District Attorney in Montgomery County, 

she had prosecuted him in 1996, a case that ended with his conviction.10

10The prior conviction that Bradley cited in his motion, a conviction 

for retaliation, isn’t one of the convictions on which the State relied on in 

either of Bradley’s indictments to prove that Bradley committed a prior 

offense against someone he was dating or against a member of his family, 

or to enhance the punishment on Bradley’s convictions for assault. 
14

Bradley represented himself in the hearing conducted on his 

motion. Ten days after the hearing, the judge who conducted the hearing 

on Bradley’s motion to disqualify the judge of the 221st District Court 

denied the pro se motion. Because the motion was denied, the judge of 

the 221st District Court continued to preside over the remaining hearing 

and trials in the cases at issue in these appeals. 

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022, the judge of the 221 District Court held 

a pretrial hearing to discuss what the court characterized as the 

“logistics” of selecting the jury, which was scheduled for Monday, June 6. 

In the hearing, the trial court said that it had come to the court’s 

attention that Bradley was saying he didn’t want to represent himself 

and that now, he was “thinking [he] want[ed] Mr. Bartlett to represent 

[him].” Based on that, the trial court asked Bradley: “[D]o you want to 

represent yourself?” In response, Bradley said: “I will use Mr. Bartlett.” 

Consequently, the only motion on which Bradley represented himself was 

on his motion to disqualify the judge of the 221st District Court, a motion 

handled before another judge, which that judge had denied.

Bartlett represented Bradley in the second consolidated 

punishment hearing in trial court causes 20-01-00617-CR and 21-02-
15

02579-CR. In the second punishment hearing, the jury found that 

Bradley should serve a 35-year sentence in cause number 20-01-00617-

CR and a 25-year sentence in cause number21-02-02579-CR.11 After the 

trial court signed judgments consistent with the jury’s verdicts following 

the second punishment hearing, Bradley appealed. 

Failure to Properly Preserve Error

In Bradley’s first issue, he argues “the trial court erred by 

conducting [a] hearing on [his] Motion for New Trial without his 

presence[.]” We don’t reach the merits of his issue, however, because it 

wasn’t properly preserved in the trial court for the purpose of a later 

appeal.

As a matter of constitutional law, a defendant has a right to be 

present at trial and to confront the witnesses that testify.12 The 

defendant’s right to be present includes hearings that a court conducts 

on motions for new trials.13 Although required, a defendant may waive 

11In response to the questions about whether the allegations in the 

respective indictments in Paragraph A and B of the indictments “are 

true[,]” the jury answered: “True.” See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d).

The trial court ordered the sentences in the two cases to be served 

concurrently.

12U.S. CONST. amend. VI; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 10. 

13See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 33.03 (Presence of Defendant).
16

his right to be present in a post-conviction hearing on a motion for new 

trial.14

On appeal, a defendant may not have the trial court’s judgment 

reversed unless the record reflects the appellant “was denied the right to 

be present at the time the motion for new trial was heard and acted upon 

by the court.”15 The record before us does not reflect that the attorney 

who represented Bradley during the November 2021 hearing—Robbie 

Barker—ever informed the trial court that Bradley had expressed a 

desire indicating that Bradley wanted to be present for the November 

hearing. And no witnesses were called to testify in the Novemberhearing

on Bradley’s motion for new trial. 

As mentioned, there were affidavits from the two jurors that were 

addressed in the hearing, affidavits that Barker obtained with the trial 

court’s permission before the hearing occurred. These affidavits were 

never formally offered into evidence, and they were not attached to the 

motion for new trial that Barker filed in Bradley’s cases. Even if Barker 

had formally offered the affidavits into evidence, Rule 606(b) generally 

14Phillips v. State, 288 S.W.2d 775 (1956). 

15Johnson v. State, 289 S.W.2d 249, 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956). 
17

prohibits courts from considering testimony from jurors about what the 

jurors considered in deliberating on a verdict. Still, despite that Rule of 

Evidence, the trial court here granted Bradley’s motion and allowed him 

a new punishment hearing based on allegations in his motion supported 

by affidavits never admitted or offered into evidence that jurors had seen 

documents not in evidence in the punishment phase of Bradley’s trial. 

Barker never told the trial court that Bradley wanted to be present 

for the hearing. On top of that, nothing shows Barker requested or could

not have obtained a bench warrant to compel the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice to compel the facility where Bradley was being held to 

bring Bradley to court for the hearing.16When boiled down, Bradley’s 

complaint about not being present on his motion for new trial is like the 

complaint the appellant raised in Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 869, 876-

77 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998, pet. ref’d). In Whitaker, the defendant’s 

attorney didn’t object to the fact the defendant was not present for the 

hearing on his motion for new trial.17The defendant’s attorney also didn’t 

object in the hearing or arrange before the hearing for a bench warrant 

16See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 24.13. 17Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 869, 877 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 

1998, pet. ref’d). 
18

to issue, which had it issued would have required the authorities holding 

the defendant to bring the defendant to court.18 On those facts, the 

Beaumont Court of Appeals concluded “that appellant’s right to be 

present at the hearing on the motion for new trial was waived.”19

Under the record presented in Bradley’s appeal, nothing shows the 

trial court was aware that Bradley wanted to be present for the hearing, 

his attorney didn’t object during the hearing that Bradley wasn’t present, 

and nothing shows any witnesses were called to testify in the hearing. So 

even if Bradley had been present, the two jurors who signed the affidavits 

wouldn’t have been there for him to “confront.” Simply put, the record 

doesn’t support Bradley’s argument that he preserved his due process 

claim. We overrule Bradley’s first issue. 

Warning of the Dangers of Self-Representation

In Bradley’s second issue, he argues the trial court “erred by 

allowing Appellant to proceed pro se at the punishment stage without 

properly warning him as required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 

(1975) and Code of Criminal Procedure Art[icle] 1.051(g).” In response,

18Id. 19Id. 
19

the State concedes that “the colloquy at the hearing on [Bradley’s] 

request to proceed pro se does not reflect that the judge orally 

admonished the appellant about the dangers of self-representation.” 

Even so, the State argues the document Bradley signed two days later,

which is titled “Faretta Warnings, Waiver of Court Appointed Counsel, 

Court Findings, and Order Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se,” 

contains warnings that sufficiently warned Bradley about the dangers of 

representing himself. 

We begin by noting that Bradley appeared as his own attorney in 

only one hearing, the hearing the trial court conducted on his motion to 

disqualify the judge of the 221st District Court on May 20, 2022. In the 

hearing on May 20th, the judge assigned to hear Bradley’s pro se motion 

began the hearing by advising Bradley that he could make an opening 

statement and call witnesses. After Bradley and the State made their 

opening statements, Bradley called Bartlett as his first witness. Bartlett 

testified that Bradley complained repeatedly to him that Barker had 

never contacted Bradley and that Bradley “felt that that was improper 

that [he] had not been brought back for the proceedings.” Bartlett also 

testified that based on what Bradley said, he understood Bradley felt a 
20

“due process violation” had occurred because Bradley had not personally 

been present at the hearing.

After Bradley and the prosecutor finished questioning Bartlett, 

Bradley called himself as a witness. Bradley testified that when Barker 

handled the hearing on his motion for new trial in November 2021, he 

was incarcerated in the McConnel Unit, Texas Department of 

Corrections. According to Bradley, he “wasn’t notified” of the hearing and 

did not know it was taking place until December 20, 2021, which is when 

he learned for the first time that the motion had been granted. Bradley 

testified that he found out the motion for new trial filed by Barker had 

been granted in a letter Barker sent him, which was dated December 20, 

2021. Bradley testified that until he received Barker’s letter, he “had no 

idea [the hearing] had taken place.” Bradley then testified that he did 

have some contact with Barker, although when they spoke it was never 

clear. According to Bradley, he “was not aware of anything that she filed 

in the motion[,]” yet he also testified that he had spoken to Barker and 

was “in disagreement with Ms. Barker about the filings for the new trial, 

the motion for new trial and the grounds.” Bradley claimed that he 

wanted a new trial on guilt, and he testified he wanted to present 
21

evidence, the two jurors’ affidavits that Barker obtained from jurors,

because those affidavits support a ruling granting a new trial on guilt. 

On appeal, Bradley acknowledges that after he invoked his right to 

represent himself, the trial court determined in the initial hearing how 

old he was, that he had experience in court, and why he wanted to 

represent himself. But Bradley claims the trial court never warned him 

about “the dangers of self-representation.” To be more specific, Bradley 

suggests the trial court failed to warn him (1) there are technical rules of 

evidence and procedure that apply to the trials, (2) that he “would not be 

granted any special consideration[,]” or (3) to advise him “of the practical 

disadvantages” associated with a defendant’s decision to represent 

himself. On top of those complaints, Bradley argues the warnings the 

trial court provided don’t comply with the requirements of article 1.051(g) 

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires trial courts to obtain 

a statement, signed by the defendant, that substantially complies with 

the warnings described in the statute listing the dangers and 

disadvantages of self-representation.20

20Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.051(g).
22

When the oral and written warnings of April 26th and April 28th 

are considered together, the record shows the warning Bradley received 

before he represented himself on his motion to disqualify the trial judge

in the hearing adequately warned him of the dangers and disadvantages 

of representing himself.21 The document Bradley signed informed him 

there are technical rules of evidence and procedure that apply to trials, 

warned him he would not be given any special consideration because he 

had no legal training or experience, and advised him he could receive free 

legal representation if he couldn’t afford counsel. And even after Bradley 

received these warnings, he chose to waive his right to counsel and 

represent himself in the hearing on his motion to disqualify the judge of 

the 221st District Court. 

We conclude the warning Bradley received before being allowed to 

represent himself on his motion to disqualify adequately warned him of 

the dangers of representing himself. Besides, Bradley represented 

himself on just that one motion. He didn’t represent himself in the trial, 

21See Osorio-Lopez v. State, 663 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App.

2022) (noting “the focus is on whether the defendant is competent to 

choose to proceed pro se, not whether he is equipped to represent himself 

at trial”); see also U.S.CONST. amend. VI; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 

1.051(g).
23

as his issue claims. We also note that Bradley didn’t assign error to the 

ruling the trial court made on his pro se motion to disqualify the judge of 

the 221st District Court. For all these reasons, Bradley’s second issue is 

overruled. 

Conclusion

Bradley failed to properly preserve his complaint that he wasn’t 

present for the hearing on his motion for new trial for a later appeal. The 

record also doesn’t support Bradley’s arguments that the trial court failed 

to properly admonish him of the dangers of representing himself on his 

motion to disqualify the judge of the 221st District Court. Accordingly, 

the trial court’s judgments in trial court causes 20-01-00617-CR and 21-

02-02579-CR are affirmed.

AFFIRMED. 

 

HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on August 1, 2023

Opinion Delivered November 29, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.