and Modified Final Order on Judgment Nisi of March 4, 2002 are vacated. 1 . At the hearing, MacDonald asserted that the bond was executed to secure Castillo’s appearance under an indictment for offenses that occurred in 1994. After the bond was executed, the State dismissed that indictment and indicted Castillo for offenses that occurred in 1999. MacDonald argued that the bond was not applicable to the second indictment. The State argued, and an assistant district attorney testified, that the indictments were for the same offenses. 2 . In spite of the prohibition against sua sponte new trials, there are cases indicating that trial courts possess inherent power to change some of their rulings in criminal cases. See, e.g., Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721, 728-29 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). But in cases that have recognized this power,
holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion for new trial waives the issues raised for appellate review holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion