MIGUEL TREVINO A/K/A MIKE TREVINO, Appellant,

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

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. For example, our colleague's opinion includes the following:

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

Our colleague's opinion includes unnecessary statements of the law and hypothetical resolutions of legal issues, but 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). Texas courts 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 the final disposition of this appeal, and which will not bind the parties, we conclude it is, to the same extent, a constitutionally-prohibited judicial advisory opinion.

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

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Concurring Opinion delivered and filed this

the 9th day of June, 2005.