Chadrick Eugene Bradley v. The State of Texas Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-21-00271-CR NO. 09-21-00272-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 On August 31, 2021, the trial court sentenced Chadrick Eugene Bradley in trial cause numbers 20-01-00617-CR and 21-02-02579-CR. Bradley filed notices of appeal and motions for new trial. On November 9, 2021, the trial court granted Bradley’s motions for new trial as to punishment only. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.9(c); see also State v. Davis, 349 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial courts have the authority to grant new trials on punishment). We notified the parties that it 1 appeared Bradley’s notices of appeal did not invoke our appellate jurisdiction, because the trial court granted motions for new trial within the time permitted by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We gave the parties until December 29, 2021, to file a response that showed this Court has jurisdiction over appeals of the trial court’s judgments. No party filed a response. Generally, an appeal may be taken by a defendant in a criminal case only after a final conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (establishing time for appeal by a defendant after a sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court signs an appealable order). The notices of appeal were timely filed, but the trial court later vacated the judgments while it retained plenary power over the judgments. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8(a). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). APPEALS DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on January 11, 2022 Opinion Delivered January 12, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
