Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2018

State v. One Million Seven Hundred Eleven Thousand Sixty One Dollars and Seventy Nine Cents ($1,711,061.79) in U.S. Currency, Elgin Watch, Rope Necklace, ID Bracelet, Two (2) Costume Jewelry Rings, and Five (5) Silver Bars

State v. One Million Seven Hundred Eleven Thousand Sixty One Dollars and Seventy Nine Cents ($1,711,061.79) in U.S. Currency, Elgin Watch, Rope Necklace, ID Bracelet, Two (2) Costume Jewelry Rings, and Five (5) Silver Bars
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 13, 2018

State v. One Million Seven Hundred Eleven Thousand Sixty One Dollars and Seventy Nine Cents ($1,711,061.79) in U.S. Currency, Elgin Watch, Rope Necklace, ID Bracelet, Two (2) Costume Jewelry Rings, and Five (5) Silver Bars

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 13, 2018 No. 04-18-00379-CV THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant v. ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-NINE CENTS ($1,711,061.79) In U.S. Currency, Elgin Watch, Rope Necklace, ID Bracelet, Two (2) Costume Jewelry Rings, and Five (5) Silver Bars, Appellees From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas Trial Court No. 10,242 The Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

ORDER Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice The State of Texas has filed a motion requesting that we “enter an express order confirming the statutory stay, enjoining the 49th District Court from making or enforcing any order concerning the enforcement of its order which was superseded by appeal pending the mandate of this Court.” “Texas courts are not empowered to give advisory opinions.” City of Helotes v. Miller, 243 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.). A court renders an advisory opinion by addressing issues that are not ripe or based on a judiciable controversy.

See id. “A case is not ripe if its resolution depends on contingent or hypothetical facts, or upon events not yet come to pass.” Id. And there is no justiciable dispute without a “real and substantial controversy involving a genuine conflict of tangible interests and not merely a theoretical dispute.” Id. Although the State’s motion alleges the appellees “will likely try to enforce this clause to have the undersigned attorney held in contempt,” the State’s motion does not show the likelihood of such enforcement is anything more than hypothetical. The State’s motion also does not demonstrate there is an existing controversy between the State and appellees about whether the appealed order is stayed pending the mandate of this court. We therefore deny the State’s motion without prejudice.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.