Craddock to summary judgments "under limited circumstances where a pro se nonmovant appeared in person but mistakenly did not respond in writing to a matter-of-law summary judgment motion.” 326 S.W.3d at 345. Thus, in analyzing whether the pro se litigant was entitled to a new trial based on the equitable principles established in Carpenter and Wheeler, the Court applied the Craddock test, including its second element inquiring whether the defendant established a meritorious defense. Id. at 346-47. However, the Texas Supreme Court subsequently clarified in Marino that Wheeler did not apply the Craddock test; rather, it applied the two-pronged test from Carpenter for determining whether a trial court should allow a late-filed summary judgment response. See Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 633 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we likewise apply the two-prong
holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment holding that trial court may allow latefiled summary judgment response when party shows good cause and no undue prejudice citing wheeler holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end