Leopoldo Rodriguez Mata v. State

Opinion

NUMBER 13-02-165-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

LEOPOLDO RODRIGUEZ MATA,                                              Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                     Appellee.

On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justices Yañez and Garza

Although we agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, we do not join the opinion of our colleague in any respect. We concur with the panel’s judgment, but we have serious reservations about our colleague’s opinion that prevent us from approving it as the opinion of the panel.  

I. Superfluous Facts

Appellate opinions must be “as brief as practicable.” Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. However, our colleague’s opinion recites procedural events and facts which are simply unnecessary to final disposition of the appeal. See id. Although, in general, appellate courts should “show their work,” our colleague’s recitation of unnecessary facts clouds her disposition of the issues on appeal and prompts us to note that a lengthy opinion is assuredly no substitute for a well-reasoned decision. See Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600, 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

II. Dicta

Our colleague’s opinion also includes unnecessary statements of the law and hypothetical resolutions of legal issues, even though appellate opinions must address only the “issues raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.” Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. This is no mere procedural guideline; it is a rule derived from the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits Texas courts from issuing advisory opinions. See Tex. Const. art. II, § 1; Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993). We have no subject-matter jurisdiction to issue opinions which do not bind the parties. See Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444. Because our colleague’s opinion ventures to decide issues which are unnecessary to final disposition of the appeal and which will not bind the parties, it is, to the same extent, a constitutionally-prohibited judicial advisory opinion.

III. Conclusion Accordingly, we do not join the opinion of our colleague. We concur in the result only. 

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ,

                                                                           Justice

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

                                                                           Justice

Do not publish. 

Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)

Concurring Memorandum Opinion delivered

and filed this the 12th day of May, 2005.