Court Opinion

ID: 9906176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 09:10:42.522825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:08.270866
License: Public Domain

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,

                                   1
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 judgment tied 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 guilt-

     1In 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 twenty-
five-year sentence, and the judgment the trial court signed is consistent
with the jury’s verdict. See id. § 22.01(b)(2)(A).
                                      2
innocence phase of the trial, in the first punishment hearing, and in the

second punishment hearing, 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 family-

violence 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

                                    3
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. See Tex. 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.
                                    4
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 sixty-

year 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).
                                        5
     The day the judgments were signed, the trial court granted the

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

Robbie Barker as 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

                                     6
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. 5 The

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.
                                      7
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.” But the 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 guilt-
innocence 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.
                                     8
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
                                    9
     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.
                                      10
disagreed about some matters but had nonetheless “overcome our

difficulties.”

      Bartlett then asked Bradley whether Bradley wanted 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

                                      11
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

                                   12
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.
                                      13
     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-

                                    14
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 number 21-02-02579-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).

                                    15
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 November hearing

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).

                                     16
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. 16 When 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. 17 The 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).
                                    17
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.

                                   18
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

                                   19
“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

                                   20
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).

                                    21
     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).
                                     22
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.

                                    23